Hacker News Reader

Comment by sefrost | Hacker News Reader

I had an idea which is basically this:

Social media companies know which videos/tweets/statuses you’ve looked at. If it’s known you viewed content which is a conspiracy theory then they could, at a later date, show you a rebuttal from a trusted source. This could be targeted based on the specific content you viewed.

I was imagining it as a more modern version of the “right of reply” rules that broadcast TV in the UK has.

Would something like this be workable?

View on HN

Facebook tried this and it resulted in the false information getting a higher click-through rate than if they didn’t call it out.

As much as it bothers me as well, people just don’t like being told they are wrong (part of the process that most people here would call “learning”).

People who go all into conspiracies, cults, and general religious or political manipulation, do it for emotional reasons; facts and reason will not move them. They need something else to make them feel safe, loved, valued, etc.

I don't know if the best antidote is giving them what they need in a less destructive way, or early education and protection from indoctrination so the next generations become less gullible.

I know a 5G conspiracy theorist who is an electrical engineering graduate, admittedly from a low ranked school.

I've manually sent him better information. He of all people should be able to understand it. He doesn't process it and continues to cheer people burning down towers.

But what's his conspiracy?

If he's saying that 5G is giving us covid then he's an idiot.

If he's saying that 5G is intended to provide better connectivity for smart appliances to report our activity to advertisers then he has a point.

He is of the "5G is causing cancer and being used to cull the population" variety. He is unsure of his position on the COVID aspect of it, but "both come from China so you have to wonder."

Could you share that information, if you don’t mind. I was trying to figure out if the radiation is safe but I couldn’t find anything on the effects of the high frequency signals.

Fun facts: It is not “radiation” and also not high frequency.

From Wikipedia: “In the U.S., Verizon is using 28 GHz and AT&T is using 39 GHz. 5G can use frequencies of up to 300 GHz”[1]. That is high frequency relative to the frequencies of 4G, and WiFI or Bluetooth which are around 2-4 GHz.[2]

Not sure what definition of radiation you’re using, but yes, electromagnetic waves are radiation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

Can you explain what you think "radiation" means? This is radio -- electromagnetic waves. It doesn't have a scary source like a nuclear weapon, but the energy does indeed radiate from the antenna.

In any case I understand that the danger comes from ionizing radiation which basically messes with your dna. 5G (and wifi) is non-ionizing so it doesn’t do anything to your dna. And it doesn’t have enough energy to heat you up and cause damage this way.

I remember watching a TED video where the speaker mentioned that Google experimented with this kind of manipulation on people consuming content that was deemed radicalizing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com