Hacker News Reader

Comment by flowerlad | Hacker News Reader

20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have a way to spread.

Today more than half the population believes in conspiracy theories because they learn the "truth" from disreputable sources on social media. This is dangerous for society.

I am glad social media companies are taking action themselves, instead of the government forcing them (which would be a 1st amendment issue).

View on HN

30 years ago back in Eastern Europe conspiracy theories didn't have a way to spread either. We had one truth. No further debates or opinions, one truth, The Truth.

I don't think you realize how dangerous suppression of freedom of speech is.

We won't have that problem here. There will still be New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. More weight should be given to these legit sources than to social media. On the internet everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart looks as legit as the BBC. That's a problem. More on that by Sacha Baron Cohen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM

Yeah, thank God you'll have a couple big companies owned by the same people to tell you what is the real truth.

China has different media as well. I'd like to see one of them saying the CCP should leave or something against them.

Who do you think is the true arbiter of real truth?

A better question, is there really an arbiter?

The only thing we have is freedom of speech to challenge ideas, debate and find what is true by ourselves, if such truth exists.

Some say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social media companies will need to engage in some censorship.

Long term I think better education and promoting critical thinking is the only way that doesn't erode democracy.

Short term I have no idea. Silencing people you deem are running misinformation campaigns is probably the quickest, and easiest. Or try weather it out while doing the long term plan of education.

Unfortunately it seems the more democratic a state is the more it's open to misinformation by rival, less democratic states.

Why are you so convinced of a grand conspiracy to suppress the "truth" being peddled by obvious grift artists?

I'm not convinced of anything. I just asked a simple question to another poster.

That's sometimes called "Just Asking Questions", and is sometimes a passive-aggressive way of arguing with someone. You don't state a position, you just ask (leading) questions, without ever stating a position that can be refuted. When someone calls you on it, you say that you're "just asking questions".

It can be a real dishonest, manipulative technique. You're running close enough to that to set off peoples' defense mechanisms. So, even if you're doing it in complete innocence, if you want to not have people upset with the way you're carrying out the conversation, change your style.

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that's a common tactic. However, it is completely fair given the conversational context to ask the poster for clarification for their actual beliefs in what determines "real truth", given that they have stated multiple situations that they find disagreeable for ascertaining "real truth." To shut down valid discussion and shout down fair questioners by throwing around accusations of logical fallacies is not conducive to debate and discussion. It creates a chilling effect that poisons the conversational well.

By the time you asked your question, I thought it was rather clear that darmoddy didn't think there was a real arbiter of truth. That tipped the scales somewhat toward me thinking you were manipulative rather than honest. Even so, I was careful not to actually accuse you of dishonest manipulation.

OTOH, asking question is at the base of the Socratic Method.

Sure. But when I'm trying to have a conversation, it's a total pain to have the other side trying to go Socratic Method on me. State your position, and I'll state mine, and then we'll talk. Trying to talk with someone who won't state their own position, but wants to make you answer questions about yours, is... not much of a "dialog", frankly.

Ah yes, the truth of 20 years ago, like all those WMD in Iraq.

That wasn't the media's fault, though, that was the Bush administration manufacturing an excuse to invade the Middle East.

I agree that the fault ultimately lies with the Bush administration for making false claims. However, it is _critically_ important to also place fault with the media outlets who simply repeated those claims, abandoning their duty as a check against the state.

A lot of media actors were in on the con.

There is a well-documented connection between journalists and intelligence agencies. In some cases journalists have been little more than mouthpieces for the US (and allied) intelligence community.

If a tree falls in the woods, but no TV stations or newspapers show repeats of it falling, does it make a sound?

IIRC an article by the New York Times was considered a turning point in convincing the population of WMDs in Iraq.

Arguably, the media's role is to stress test claims made by the government. They certainly do it for the trump admin. Though I wonder if they'll do it for the Biden admin.

I wouldn't say it's their fault. But still in 2020, the media breathlessly reports targeted leaks by intelligence agencies as fact. We didn't learn anything.

Arguably, the media's role is to manufacture consent among the general public for whatever the government wants to do.

I'm left leaning, and I hope that they absolutely do stress-test the Biden administration and every administration after it. If nothing else, 2020 has showed me how important the 4th Estate is in our democracy and the power it truly has. Watching the major news networks cut Trump's speech short on Election Night when he started declaring victory and insisting they'd already won before Florida was even counted was the most important thing I've seen them do in a long, long time.

> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have a way to spread.

Are you genuinely arguing that conspiracy theories are a phenomenon that is unique to the 21st century?

Is there any data that shows the number of people believing in conspiracy theories is actually greater than it was, and that that gap was due to social media?

20 years ago I remember TV shows talking about the moon landing being a hoax, and a decent number of people I talked to at the time believing it. This is just an anecdote, but I've noticed that people make the claim that conspiracy theories are on the rise and I've yet to see hard evidence to support that claim.

The difference is the moon landing or ‘who shot JFK’ are about subjects that are low stakes, very low. Having millions people believe the Presidential election was corrupt is corrosive to the basic civic foundations of the political process.

Exactly. Conspiracy theories are now being weaponized by the right (via YouTube) to whip up anger and violence.

> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have a way to spread. Today more than half the population believes in conspiracy theories because they learn the "truth" from disreputable sources on social media.

Why do you suppose that is, though? Could it be because algorithms designed to feed users content they like promote and reinforce echo chambers which, in turn, incentivize the creation and spread of convenient misinformation?

Social media did not start the echo chambers, but they have played a huge role in making them more accessible and extreme than ever before. How can we trust them to safeguard us from misinformation when they are the ones profiting from it?

I do not want Google deciding what is and isn't "misinformation". As far as I'm concerned, they're more guilty of the mess we're now in than any media organization or content creator.

On mobile so I can’t find the source. Conspiracy theories spread in a low-trust environment. Maybe instead of trying to block ideas (which can never work), initiatives that work to restore trust should be investigated.

20 years ago, and before that, liberals complained that the media, schools, etc., were lying to the public.

Liberals? Conservatives complained too!

> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth.

Come on, do you really believe this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com