Hacker News Reader

Misinformation, by mistake or intention, is bad. But without freedom to publish and speak, nothing can be done about it. This is especially true when the government is spreading the misinformation. Soviet Russia jokes aside, without freedom of speech and press, our soon to be former president would have been able to spread misinformation with impunity. It's really remarkable that this happened.

The other side of this, that most people don't like to discuss is that people are also free to believe misinformation and lies. It's hard, but that is actually part of the human condition.

I feel that solution is to build, use, and promote platforms that encourage dialog without censorship. A free exchange of ideas is still the right solution. This includes discouraging the practice of silence-by-mob. All these tactics accomplish is polarization and tribalism and don't do much to contain disinformation.

How do you have a platform that doesn’t do any censorship but also discourages “silence-by-mob”?

I feel like every platform that is focused on absolute free speech always ends up filled with racists and the like... that can’t be a coincidence.

Every other platform that doesn't publish racist publications is hiding from you the fact that there are many racists in our society.

Personally, I'd rather know and see what we're up against.

That is a good question for which I don't have a good answer. A good first step would be to stop celebrating the aftermath of these actions. As to the racists part, I haven't personally seen the explosion of racism linked to free speech that keeps ketting implied. I suspect that some of this is hyperbole. This line of thought implies that ultimately anyone who seeks out a free speech platform is a racist or supports racism. I think this is dangerous.

I'm curious what platforms you're on that don't censor things where you haven't seen some bullshit stuff. I haven't sought out any free speech platforms.

I also don't think that line of though implies that everyone is a racist. The previous comment just implies that racists will seek out these platforms because it is the only platform that will accept them. Not that everyone who seeks these out are racists. Just enough racist and shitty people who got kicked out of the larger platforms will slowly fill up these free speech platform

Every alternative platform that is focused on absolute free speech. If you found an anti-witch-hunt society, the population will be primarily witches, regardless of how bad witch hunts are. Not having free speech is detrimental if there isn't an alternative, and it's detrimental for any alternatives. The only solution that works out the best is having free speech.

> I am much more interested in talking about steps we can take to mitigate and prevent misinformation while preserving free speech.

How do you even categorize misinformation when western societies have decided that there is no such thing as truth?

Our crisis is far, far, deeper than what information can be published online. We are in the midst of an epistemological cataclysm.

The answer is probably not in building a system, but by individuals putting in the effort to challenge misinformation in the contexts where it is deployed. I feel the phrase “don’t feed the trolls” and XKCD 386 have caused a generation to give up on fighting the good fight, while the trolls have not given up.

I don’t think there is a lot of radical strategy needed here - just a lot of hard work and vigilance.

When you see misinformation, take the effort to call it out, and hope that your civility and reasonableness win over the silent audience.

Easier said than done when dealing with echo-chamber communities, but those communities have to spill out into your own world at some point, and I guess that’s the point to tackle it.

I think we've seen that doesn't work. It's incredibly difficult to counter misinformation because there's SO MUCH OF IT. Plus you can't assume the general populace has the time or energy to do it. If I'm working 10 hour retail shift, help tuck the kids in, and then check FB.

Why do you think I have the time to check my friend's post for disinformation? Yes I can be skeptical of it but sometimes it's hard to decipher that especially when it may confirm to your own biases.

You can counter misinformation on a particular topic scalably by gathering a set of authoritative sources of information on it, and presenting them in places where there is discussion about that topic (ex. YouTube putting COVID info links on videos). Now of course some people won't believe that information, but those people weren't going to have their mind changed regardless of what you do.

I don’t know, my wife spends literal hours a day arguing with people on Facebook about COVID-19, citing CDC statistics, sometimes arguing with 20 people at a time.

The problem is the flow of all this goes something like.

1) A friend of hers posts something factually incorrect about COVID or lockdowns.

2) My wife posts a carefully worded and cited response.

3) Four or five people react with laugh or angry emojis.

4) someone weighs in and tells my wife how stupid and dumb she is, and how she is completely wrong. They often say this in a very nasty way.

5) She responds in a firm but not rude way that she believes they are wrong. She cites sources.

6) This person never responds again, and drops off.

7) A new person weighs in, generally rudely, making ad hominem attacks about her weight or whatever else they can.

8) She argues with them as well, never personally attacking them. She focuses on facts and statistics.

9) Over the course of hours she starts to accumulate likes and a significant number of people thumbs up her responses despite not saying anything.

I don’t know how she manages it, honestly. I can’t argue like this at all, it’s completely draining. She likes to think that because the threads are so active that hundreds of people are watching and she’s helping to change minds to think more rationally. But it’s hard to know for sure, and I don’t think most people have the psychological wherewithal that she has to deal with how abrasive and rude all these people are to her.

> 2) My wife posts a carefully worded and cited response.

> 3) Four or five people react with laugh or angry emojis.

> 4) someone weighs in and tells my wife how stupid and dumb she is, and how she is completely wrong. They often say this in a very nasty way.

> 5) She responds in a firm but not rude way that she believes they are wrong. She cites sources.

> 6) This person never responds again, and drops off.

Happens to me as well in other forums.

I have decided I'm not doing it for those people, but rather for those who would otherwise read the post, see it was uncontested and think "therefore it must be true".

Kudos to her for trying. I’m sure it feels like picking up a single bag of litter while mass pollution continues all around us, but change starts small and if only more people put in the effort to contest nonsense when they see it, we’d be further ahead than any technological solution to misinformation.