Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart | Hacker News Reader

Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart

niemanlab.org

25 pointsraleighm14 comments

Pretty much a non-article. The only argument presented seems to be in favor of restoring the old gatekeepers:

because although many of us (early 2000s “us”) had imagined that digital technologies would empower citizens by facilitating collective action and eroding the control of elite gatekeepers, many of us have had to accept that, without those gatekeepers and with horizontal networks, users become readily exploitable by algorithms and bad actors.

...because the traditional media has always been trustworthy, right? Whatever solution there is to growing polarization, it isn't going to come from the establishment.

I thought this was a funny conclusion to come to as well. Let the organizations (known to be a mouthpiece of governments) shape public opinion and be the trusted gatekeeper to our knowledge? No thanks.

Personally I’ll take the present situation, where average people can learn uncomfortable truths about our society.

The issue here is that the center has become decidedly rotten; something has to give, and everyone knows that on a political, social, and economic level, there is no longer any normal to go back to. The good times were never a product of our national unity or our figuring out the best way to do things. They were a historical phenomenon arising from a specific set of circumstances. You can’t just go back to how things were in the 90’s or 80’s, that time is gone.

In some ways one part of the solution is simple: Pass laws that deliver consequences for lying and disseminating false information or fabricating narratives.

Note I am NOT identifying any one political party as the culprit. They are all at fault here.

These laws should apply to everyone, from traditional news networks to politicians and individuals. I know the situation is a bit different with social media. If the argument is that all they do is provide a means for interpersonal communication with minimal or no supervision, then, OK, the laws apply to individual users and perhaps only apply to social networks if users are allowed to post and exist anonymously.

This isn't a new concept. Human life is about reacting to consequences. From learning how to walk to learning not to touch hot pots or when to cross the street. The most basic of human behaviors are self regulated due to very clear undesirable consequences we learn about along the way.

Politics and the media are absolutely rotten. They both hide behind the abject lack of consequences. Both politicians and media outlets can lie and fabricate with absolute impunity. I won't list examples here, suffice it to say we could easily fill thousands of hours of videos with examples of both media and politics (on all sides of political thought) lying or misguiding the public with impunity.

This is a forcing function these people do not have. And, because of that, they can say and do almost as they please without consequences. Taking things out of context, fabricating "facts" and threading ridiculous conclusions are every-day realities. Sadly, the Internet and Social media has expanded this exponentially through massively greater access to all of it and the ability for people to interconnect and interact like never before.

If we implement consequences for this most insidious problem we will be treated to a very different kind of politics and politicians as well as media that actually does the homework necessary to report well researched facts rather than distortions and politically aligned falsehoods hour after hour, day after day, year after year.

This would be a refreshing start. Not perfect, but it would address one of the most serious issues pulling people apart: The dissemination of lies that, when repeated enough times, are taken to be true by a population seemingly uninterested or incapable of research and critical thinking (factors that are openly exploited by political actors).

"In some ways one part of the solution is simple: Pass laws that deliver consequences for lying and disseminating false information or fabricating narratives."

Something inside me dies every time I hear an American say that the solution to this problem is to set fire to the First Amendment. And who, pray tell, would determine who was lying or misguiding the public? Do you think if such a law were to come into effect while Trump was in power, that he would make sure to use that power justly, instead of as a muzzle to silence political criticism? Or that any other person in power wouldn't abuse the heck out of this?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and like everything else in this country we've racked up an enormous debt without making plans to pay it. It only takes a generation or two forgetting this to destroy everything that made America beautiful.

It’s been somewhat fascinating to me over the past 12 years to watch both sides go absolutely insane with allegations of abuses of power, government overreach and all sort of political nastiness. Yet the answer from both never seems to be a re-evaluation of the systems we’ve put in place over the years that have allowed these things to come to pass, nor a questioning of whether the actors we align or malign should even have the powers they have in the first place or be so protected in those powers. Instead it’s an insistence that if only we get “the right person” in power and then tear away all the institutions that allowed the “wrong people” to challenge, delay or unseat that person then surely everything will work out perfectly forever and always.

That cure is far worse than the disease.

There is heavy precedent behind legal definitions being used to stifle dissent - it is part of why there is the public figure standard for libel and why it is such a high bar to clear. Hell the system has enough issues with whistleblower hunting to shoot the messenger for pointing out they are fucked up without giving them another tool. It wouldn't result in "truth but less fredom" but "more lies and less freedom".

> Pass laws that deliver consequences for lying and disseminating false information or fabricating narratives.

This is essentially impossible to do while maintaining a free society.

I disagree for the reasons listed by others about it being impossible to enforce in a just way, and too easy to be corruptible. I think it would be better to instead change the incentives.

The current incentive of a publisher like NYT or Fox News is to make money. How do you make money on the internet? By driving up page views to increase ad clickthrough. And how do you drive up page views? By spreading misinformation, or at the very least, inflammatory articles which get people excitable.

Simply by reading a news article, we think that its goal is to inform us even if we approach it with caution. Indeed, we could say that writing thoughtful, well-informed articles is exactly what you don’t want to do if you want to increase page views.

Could this change with different incentives? I think so! I think an only-paid news source would probably do a better job at informing, since misinformation would hopefully cause someone to cancel their subscription. I’d love to think of other incentives that are in line with the goal of informing the public rather than increasing pageviews.

It has been done. It's not as simple as it seems, the link explains furthur.

"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

edit: made less snarky

Now I want to learn why there aren't more defamation lawsuits.

I'm uncomfortable muzzling people. But I enthusiastically support holding everyone accountable for the harm they cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

If you say it, you gotta own it, for better or for worse.

Waste of time article. Perpetuates myths that are inaccurate like with the information silos.

I don’t really see a simple way out of the present situation. Maybe there was once a time when people tolerated the “wrong” views of others, but that’s long past.

Now the hegemony is enforced in many ways. Social firing campaigns being one of the popular ones.

Social firing for the wrong views was always a thing. Before even the HUAC - just ask any unwed mother who was fired or look at "morality" clauses. The Supreme Court accepted special pleading of "because drugs" in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case of school jurisdiction.

It is just a matter of whose ox is being gored - listen closely and you will hear the long echoes of "Welcome to my world.".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com