20 ms·

Bullshit Asymmetry Principle[0] always applies. By the time Community Notes has appeared, tens or even hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people will

Bullshit Asymmetry Principle[0] always applies. By the time Community Notes has appeared, tens or even hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people will have seen the misinformation. Even once Community Notes have appeared, many won't read them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle

elektrontamer 2y ago
Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information? Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. We know policing speech doesn't work, whoever does the policing introduces their own biases, this was clear as day with the hunter laptop story and how the goverment put pressure on social media companies to supress it.
- macintux 2y ago
  > Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. If they’ve internalized/amplified it, they’ll believe the source, and disregard the contradictory information. This has been well-established over the last, oh, 10 years. Facts are irrelevant if you can choose your own sources.
  - the_optimist 2y ago
    This “sounds smart” and I’m sure it circulates well in conversation. In practice, no. The point of “facts” is to identify useful truths that guide decisions. When some portion of the distribution of people identify misalignment, which is inevitable—not optional—then they will true up.
    - macintux 2y ago
      4 years on and a significant proportion of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Just how many years will it take for that to true up?
      - tailrecursion 2y ago
        I notice you don't make a definite claim that it wasn't stolen. You're annoyed by the fact others believe it was, based on what you feel is insufficient evidence, yes? But if you can prove it wasn't, I'm interested
        ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        Surely the burden of proof is on those making a claim of election interference? Elections are designed to be reliable and there haven't been reports of previous elections being "stolen", so I would think that reasonable evidence should be provided if people want to push the idea that an election was interfered with.
        the_optimist 2y ago
        There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. There is evidence gathering activity which supports or undermines, strengthening or weakening a hypothesis. Ideally, one dispositive form of evidence affirms or denies a hypothesis. It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud, but in any case, other claims are weak evidence.
        seadan83 2y ago
        > There is evidence gathering activity These are recounts, audits, and security guards. No recounts deviated by that much, even the massive Arizona recount found no significant deviation. > It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud Please provide that. The evidence AFAIK is counted as essentially "parts per million", it is so small. Meanwhile there are a variety of safeguards, audits, verifications & recounts. The null hypothesis in this case I don't believe would be "fraudulent election", so it is a claim.
        Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
        > There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. In the scientific world, a hypothesis that has no evidence is treated with skepticism. In the rest of the world, it gets treated as fact, even as evidence against the claim pours in.
    - the_optimist 2y ago
      It is absolutely fantastic that this assertion draws ire from those who have no substantial response. It is intended to poke you directly in the eyeballs. That crowd so often favors censorship to protect the same. If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.
    - nmz 2y ago
      Your claim is not false, but not universally true either, the counter is alex jones, the flat earth movement, religion as well, you can spend nearly an infinity believing in lies. The human brain is quite malleable to lies.
  - elektrontamer 2y ago
    So what? People have the right to be wrong and ignorant. It's far better than having The Ministry of Tru... sorry I mean Disinformation Governance Board. Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually. For example consider the Iraq war, a war the american public was rushed into without the free flow of information, something you seem keen on, but now that the public has access to info the same republican base that was in support of the war now hates war hawks like john bolton.
    - nmz 2y ago
      If all you believe are lies, what's the difference?
    - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      > Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually Eventually, yes, but until it happens, bodies are piling up. EDIT: Also, FWIW, the truth is often exposed nearly immediately, yet for some people, once they have chosen to believe the lie, they can't be convinced of the truth.
- 2c2c2c 2y ago
  80% of republicans believe 2020 was stolen.
  - jkubicek 2y ago
    don't worry, community notes on Twitter will fix this /s
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Reddit's censorship surely will.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information? Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0] Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets. Speech has consequences. > Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. ...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this. If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term. Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
  - tailrecursion 2y ago
    > Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      Yes, but that correction doesn't reach everyone. Again thus, "speech has consequences"
  - elektrontamer 2y ago
    Sorry but I'm not willing to live in an insane orwellian world just so your grandma gets her vaccine. It's her family's responsiblity to convince her and if she still refuses shes an adult she has the right to refuse treatment and vaccines. As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences. What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?
- thomaslord 2y ago
  It's well established that adults who read incorrect information frequently don't find out it was wrong and become more skeptical of the source. Some people operate that way, but it's a small minority unfortunately. In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.
tailrecursion 2y ago
Those are all valid disadvantages of community notes, and free speech in general. How do you explain that there are smart people who have known about these very disadvantages for many years, and still respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information"? I don't suppose you know of a solution (to a problem that I admit I haven't fully specified) that has no disadvantages. The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > How do you explain that there are smart people who [..] respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information" Someone can be intelligent and still have misplaced hope for humanity to the point where I would consider them to be outright naive. All it took was an hour or two on social media back in 2020/21. You could easily find someone who insisted that Ivermectin cured COVID, point out tons of studies showing that it's worthless against COVID, and yet they would reject all those studies as lies. > I don't suppose you know of a solution Nope. :-( Kids are taught the scientific method, but that doesn't seem to be enough. They learn enough to pass a test and then forget about it all. > The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening. Agreed, though be careful to not read words that aren't there. Elsewhere in this thread, someone accused me of being in favor of government enforcement against free speech despite me saying nothing of the sort. Arguments that misinformation is bad is not an argument that it should be legally enforced! In other words, yes, some leftists believe that misinformation should be illegal, but not everyone arguing that misinformation is bad is arguing that it should be illegal.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    I'm looking back with how much teenage edgelord/ironic/sarcastic speech that was rampant in my youth covered for people who actually held horrible views like white nationalism. I thought it was all just shock humor. I know better now, but I'm worried about that persisting in kids. I think it's always been that way. I don't know how to mitigate it.

elektrontamer 2y ago

Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information? Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. We know policing speech doesn't work, whoever does the policing introduces their own biases, this was clear as day with the hunter laptop story and how the goverment put pressure on social media companies to supress it.

macintux 2y ago
> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. If they’ve internalized/amplified it, they’ll believe the source, and disregard the contradictory information. This has been well-established over the last, oh, 10 years. Facts are irrelevant if you can choose your own sources.
- the_optimist 2y ago
  This “sounds smart” and I’m sure it circulates well in conversation. In practice, no. The point of “facts” is to identify useful truths that guide decisions. When some portion of the distribution of people identify misalignment, which is inevitable—not optional—then they will true up.
  - macintux 2y ago
    4 years on and a significant proportion of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Just how many years will it take for that to true up?
    - tailrecursion 2y ago
      I notice you don't make a definite claim that it wasn't stolen. You're annoyed by the fact others believe it was, based on what you feel is insufficient evidence, yes? But if you can prove it wasn't, I'm interested
      - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        Surely the burden of proof is on those making a claim of election interference? Elections are designed to be reliable and there haven't been reports of previous elections being "stolen", so I would think that reasonable evidence should be provided if people want to push the idea that an election was interfered with.
        the_optimist 2y ago
        There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. There is evidence gathering activity which supports or undermines, strengthening or weakening a hypothesis. Ideally, one dispositive form of evidence affirms or denies a hypothesis. It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud, but in any case, other claims are weak evidence.
        seadan83 2y ago
        > There is evidence gathering activity These are recounts, audits, and security guards. No recounts deviated by that much, even the massive Arizona recount found no significant deviation. > It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud Please provide that. The evidence AFAIK is counted as essentially "parts per million", it is so small. Meanwhile there are a variety of safeguards, audits, verifications & recounts. The null hypothesis in this case I don't believe would be "fraudulent election", so it is a claim.
        Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
        > There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. In the scientific world, a hypothesis that has no evidence is treated with skepticism. In the rest of the world, it gets treated as fact, even as evidence against the claim pours in.
  - the_optimist 2y ago
    It is absolutely fantastic that this assertion draws ire from those who have no substantial response. It is intended to poke you directly in the eyeballs. That crowd so often favors censorship to protect the same. If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.
  - nmz 2y ago
    Your claim is not false, but not universally true either, the counter is alex jones, the flat earth movement, religion as well, you can spend nearly an infinity believing in lies. The human brain is quite malleable to lies.
- elektrontamer 2y ago
  So what? People have the right to be wrong and ignorant. It's far better than having The Ministry of Tru... sorry I mean Disinformation Governance Board. Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually. For example consider the Iraq war, a war the american public was rushed into without the free flow of information, something you seem keen on, but now that the public has access to info the same republican base that was in support of the war now hates war hawks like john bolton.
  - nmz 2y ago
    If all you believe are lies, what's the difference?
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    > Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually Eventually, yes, but until it happens, bodies are piling up. EDIT: Also, FWIW, the truth is often exposed nearly immediately, yet for some people, once they have chosen to believe the lie, they can't be convinced of the truth.
2c2c2c 2y ago
80% of republicans believe 2020 was stolen.
- jkubicek 2y ago
  don't worry, community notes on Twitter will fix this /s
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Reddit's censorship surely will.
Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information? Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0] Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets. Speech has consequences. > Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. ...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this. If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term. Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
- tailrecursion 2y ago
  > Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Yes, but that correction doesn't reach everyone. Again thus, "speech has consequences"
- elektrontamer 2y ago
  Sorry but I'm not willing to live in an insane orwellian world just so your grandma gets her vaccine. It's her family's responsiblity to convince her and if she still refuses shes an adult she has the right to refuse treatment and vaccines. As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences. What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?
thomaslord 2y ago
It's well established that adults who read incorrect information frequently don't find out it was wrong and become more skeptical of the source. Some people operate that way, but it's a small minority unfortunately. In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.

tailrecursion 2y ago

Those are all valid disadvantages of community notes, and free speech in general. How do you explain that there are smart people who have known about these very disadvantages for many years, and still respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information"? I don't suppose you know of a solution (to a problem that I admit I haven't fully specified) that has no disadvantages. The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> How do you explain that there are smart people who [..] respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information" Someone can be intelligent and still have misplaced hope for humanity to the point where I would consider them to be outright naive. All it took was an hour or two on social media back in 2020/21. You could easily find someone who insisted that Ivermectin cured COVID, point out tons of studies showing that it's worthless against COVID, and yet they would reject all those studies as lies. > I don't suppose you know of a solution Nope. :-( Kids are taught the scientific method, but that doesn't seem to be enough. They learn enough to pass a test and then forget about it all. > The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening. Agreed, though be careful to not read words that aren't there. Elsewhere in this thread, someone accused me of being in favor of government enforcement against free speech despite me saying nothing of the sort. Arguments that misinformation is bad is not an argument that it should be legally enforced! In other words, yes, some leftists believe that misinformation should be illegal, but not everyone arguing that misinformation is bad is arguing that it should be illegal.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  I'm looking back with how much teenage edgelord/ironic/sarcastic speech that was rampant in my youth covered for people who actually held horrible views like white nationalism. I thought it was all just shock humor. I know better now, but I'm worried about that persisting in kids. I think it's always been that way. I don't know how to mitigate it.