Hacker News Reader

Comment by rainbowmverse | Hacker News Reader

This thread is a good example of the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" fallacy.

It is debunked by research. The thread has countless instances of it. In each, someone goes to the trouble of debunking it. The "exposing bad ideas reduces their power" camp is unmoved. The "the research says you're wrong" camp is unmoved.

The false notion is firmly wedged into the public mind because the research came too late. I don't know a good way to prevent this while not shutting down good but unpopular ideas. Letting Nazis, goofballs, and fascists on to all the big social media platforms has obviously not reduced their numbers.

View on HN

Can you source that? Otherwise I can't tell if I'm arguing with you, your source, or a straw man.

No one asked for a citation on the widespread claim that exposing bad ideas to the light makes them go away, or at least decline in popularity. It's stated and taken as truth, but no one provided proof that it's true. I matched the standard of evidence applied to the original claim.

It might be wise to actually investigate that bit of "common sense" before betting the future of the world on people's ability to deal with a flood of misinformation. Maybe I'm wrong. No one bothered to back it up with evidence though. Start there, not with my response to the claim.

You could wisely point out I claimed there's research, and I could at least provide it. The research I've seen tells me this won't help since people tend to discount research that goes against their beliefs, and use research that supports those beliefs as reinforcement. It won't do you any good if you start out with a strong belief in the unsupported original claim, as seems to be the case with most people I see here making it.

I didn't ask for sources on those because they looked believable. Worse, I hadn't seen support for banning until your post. You were the bastion for discussion supporting Microsoft's pressure on Gab. I want to believe your critique and take your side (it's a very popular one online). The article (unless I missed this) wasn't making either claim as superior, it was reporting the news. While many people discount evidence, I hoped to have a starting point for research and looked for support of banning from you. I thought you may be able to provide me sources to guide me towards your way of thinking. You didn't and self justified by fighting the straw man you built. I'd like to believe you, however your argument is self defeating.

Instead it feels like you've belittled me for not already taking your side. You're withholding the research you have and I'm supposed to trust you based on this discussion? How?

I tried to do research, What I found: 1) I don't know thy right search terms to find articles advocating banning users to solve the problem.

2) Articles discussing the problems of a lack of formal research: http://gwdspace.wrlc.org:8180/jspui/bitstream/1961/8566/4/A4...

A defense of exposing behaviors as a means of change: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.j...

What I've gleamed: 1) A policy of open communication is useful in groups 2) Exposing problems can lead to meaningful change 3) Open communication in a company can help build a powerful culture

As this pertains to online forms: nothing it it's taking about discussion. Abd I failed to locate good articles on that subject.

Researching Gab: the posts from Gab was immediately followed by a funding request. Users pointing out how it appears to be "Twitter for racists" add (cherry picked) posts highlighting the advocation of destruction if Jewish memorials (and enslavement of the Jewish people).

To comment on the article: this appears to be shining the sun on what appears a racist bastion advocating violence. (I might be wrong. Gab didn't remove the posts, the user did) Or to rephrase Microsoft's threat as I'm seeing it: if [Gab] does not remove a post [advocating violence] , Gab must seek hosting on another platform.

So which strategy worked? Ban or exposure? For Microsoft? For Gab? For the user?

I don't know that the answer is the same for each group. I suspect given the article, exposure pushed Microsoft to push for a ban. A ban pressured the user, by thinking their platform. So where does Gab stand?

> You could wisely point out I claimed there's research, and I could at least provide it. The research I've seen tells me this won't help since people tend to discount research that goes against their beliefs, and use research that supports those beliefs as reinforcement. It won't do you any good if you start out with a strong belief in the unsupported original claim, as seems to be the case with most people I see here making it.

Come on man, I think I'm on your side here, but this is a cop-out. If you're not sure where to find the studies, just say so -- otherwise, why hold them back at this point? (Surely you don't hold the extreme view that everyone is completely impervious to evidence, so you can't just say that the evidence proves itself not to be worth sharing.)

I too remember reading about evidence contradicting the 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' meme -- for example, studies demonstrating that false claims stick with people and continue to affect their thinking, even to the point of being held as beliefs, after they are convincingly refuted (or perhaps even withdrawn by the person who presented the original claim, who admits that they completely made it up). If I have time later, I'll see if I can find some good sources to link to.

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com