Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

That works for Qwest's CEOs, but probably not Apple's.

If this is the endgame, it's good that computers exist. Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies.

Nowadays, the lies would have to be pretty nuanced to have an effect.

Of course, there's something to be said for overwhelming power. If those in the government really want their way, and all three branches refuse to yield, and none of us can control who are in those branches, is there really anything we can do to stop it?

Luckily, this is roughly as likely as the moon disappearing. For now.

View on HN

> Nowadays, the lies would have to be pretty nuanced to have an effect.

You mean like "Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction, honest! So USA must preemptively invade a sovereign nation." Or, "Obama is a Muslim!" which 29% of polled people believed as late as 9/2015.

You vastly overestimate the sophistication of the American populace.

It's any populace, not just American.

And what's the rate of people believing in a God above?

The romans were already capable of creating pretty nuanced lies. I'm very certain we are, too.

As for control of public opinion in the age of the internet, I don't think it's hard at all. First of all, we have several industries that are focused on just that - PR, advertising, political spin-doctors - and secondly those industries get more and more sophisticated tools through modern data collection...

> That works for Qwest's CEOs, but probably not Apple's.

For everyone else's sake, this appears to be a reference to Joseph Nacchio [1]. I hadn't heard of him before. It's a weird feeling to have sympathy for someone who has resources enough to bring their criminal case through appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. From the wikipedia article alone, I have no idea what to believe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

> It's a weird feeling to have sympathy for someone who has resources enough to bring their criminal case through appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

Why would that matter?! Do you seriously believe that because someone has the financial ability to actually protect his rights that they're somehow beneath your ability to have sympathy?

Yeah, fair enough. That was not appropriate.

> Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies.

People still are people, with all their positive and negative sides. Some technological advancement is unlikely to change that.

People often believe "facts" more due to their own preconceived biases than due to logical investigation. So any reports that support their position are obviously the truth. Likewise, they dismiss reports that are contrary to their position.

There are lots of examples one could use as proof - recently Donald Trump. Notice there's absolutely no one in the middle? You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground. Often it's because there's also no rationale for the extremes.

How do we use the scientific method on issues like this? Even our historical perspectives hold biases - and sometimes it's hard to collect a large enough sample size to have confidence in your conclusion.

This is very important for us because we think we can change the minds of people (at least the people who do not have a direct. malicious motivation). We think that if the facts are out, people will support the facts. This is not the complete truth (if it is true at all):

> Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11...

One hypothesis imho worth exploring: how much does presentation matter? can we present the same facts in a way that is more pallatable? what if we tried to coax the audience into believing they came to the conclusion from the facts themselves?

> particularly political partisans

I think I identified the problem. Hey, let's boil down all complex answers to complex problems along a 1-dimensional axis and then completely and voluntarily ignore half that axis! What could possibly go wrong?

> how much does presentation matter?

A lot, in my experience trying to change minds.

> can we present the same facts in a way that is more pallatable?

Humor is perfect for this. "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." -Oscar Wilde

> what if we tried to coax the audience into believing they came to the conclusion from the facts themselves?

This is much easier to do on an individual basis than en masse. You basically hand-hold someone down their line of thinking until you get to the dissonance, then comes the important bit, you take a step back. If the person feels coerced in any way, they will push back, which is why you simply try to walk them down their own train of thought. Eventually they will stumble, especially if you gently lay some facts in the way... At all times you must respect their opinion.

All of this would be much easier if people didn't tie their egos to their beliefs so tightly.

Definitely presentation is a huge factor. Presidential elections are great examples. If a good orator says something enough times, with conviction in a nice package people will believe it.

During Bill Clinton's first run for office against H.W.Bush, Al Gore said over and over, "Folks tickle down economics just don't work. We have proof.... " He was lying through his teeth yet people believed it. History clearly shows that despite record spending 10 out of the twelve years Reagan and bush were in office they lowered taxes and had an increase in income revenues.

> You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground.

Easy enough. Some people take principled stands on issues, even when it's not always politically convenient. If you disagree with them, you are wrong, even if you are well-meaning. Even their political enemies can be seen giving them respect - Scalia and Ginsburg were good friends!

Some people take populist stands on issues, appeal to one group by attacking another - the Establishment Candidates in Washington, the 1%, immigrants, whoever. If you disagree with them, you are stupid or a bad person. "Neutral ground" is enemy territory.

This would have been better for apple if it kept its mouth shut like its other sister companies who mostly have been mute despite it all over the years lol

"Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity."[0][1]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11133909

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...

I'd love to believe that twitter could be a counterbalance, but it can also be an amplifier - any lie repeated long and loud enough becomes truth - particularly when twitter streams are "algorithmicly driven", and can therefore be filtered to give whatever sentiment more precedence.

Haa twitter stopped trump's rise?

Or "of course Bill Cosby is guilty"

No he isn't. People shouldn't be allowed to get people charged on "he said, she said" crimes 19 years after the fact.

That's my point. The amplifier of media, old and new, allows this kind of topic to be a thing, when by all ethical standards, it should not be.

> Nowadays, the lies would have to be pretty nuanced to have an effect.

Actually no. Most people are jaded or just don't care. Lots of things the govt says are easily demonstrable lies but not enough people that matter care so they lie with impunity. The quality of the lie doesn't matter as long as not enough people (or the people that matter) care.

>> If this is the endgame, it's good that computers exist. >> Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. >> Nowadays, the lies would have to be pretty nuanced to >> have an effect.

I completely disagree. Just look at the presidential candidates: someone who is regarded as a serial liar, someone who wants to give everything for free yet is ridiculed for not understanding economics, a billionaire who takes opposite sides of issues even on the same day, a brain surgeon who is forgotten in the polls, etc.

People believe many things even without a single shred of proof. "Crowdsourcing of truth" should be the meme of Twitter.

Speaking of Qwest CEOs...

"Ex-con CEO Joe Nacchio accuses Apple of 'PR ploy' in iPhone dispute" http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2016/02/18/ex-con-joe...

Maybe he learned his lesson?

It very much annoys me to see headlines posted as the fact of what someone said. I actually watched the interview just now to verify, because the headline didn't sound like something Nacchio would say.

"I give Apple a lot of credit for being principled." - Joe Nacchio (starting 1:44)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjBRxKV0WI4

Nacchio is saying Apple is going to lose, and that he fears they will retaliate against Apple. But he's not saying Apple is wrong to push back. He's saying Apple picked the wrong case to fight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com