Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Lol. The art is not dead. It has simply moved on from ancient forms. Nobody's mind is being changed by editorials in some paper-and-ink newspaper. Minds are changed through social media. The skill now isn't about formulated argument. It is about subtle pushes delivered through a variety of means. Want grandma to change her mind about politics? Don't send her a well-reasoned letter. Manipulate her social media feeds. Hit her with targeted adds/messages from apparently like-minded people. Manufacture something that she fears that will draw her to where you want her to move. The art of persuasion isn't dead. It is just now operating on a wider playing field and softer rulebook.

View on HN

It seems what you are describing is manipulation, not persuasion. The outcome is the same but at least in my mind persuasion means to have a good faith argument.

Is that the art of persuasion or the art of propaganda?

To say that propaganda is part of the art of persuasion would be stretching the meaning of persuasion beyond its general usage. Persuasion implies a respect for its recipient and their rational faculty and trying to convince them by reasonable evidence and arguments. That is missing from propaganda. In fact, propaganda and advertising is most often the opposite, in that it aims to overpower the rational faculty with irrational appeals to emotion.

Propaganda is a tool of persuasion. So too is fear, money, guilt, logic and everything else under the sun that may move someone's mind from one opinion to another. The outer bounds are only what is acceptable under the various rulebooks (eg laws) which today are wide open compared to yesteryear.

It's the art of persuasion via propaganda.

Not true - for the most part social media and the other types of ads, etc you mention are about reinforcing already-held beliefs, or otherwise giving them direction. Persuasion is about actually changing someone's mind.

This is why a given political ad can reinforce the beliefs of two people who believe opposing ideas: One says "See, I KNEW it was true." and the other says "See! I knew the media/platform/community was biased this way!"

As I see it the art of persuasion has been weaponized over the last century through media and advertising. Ever more effective ways of manipulating people were devised and deployed at scale. The current most effective approach being social media. So why would someone bother with an older less efficient weapon when they can use the latest and greatest weapon for the same price?

As someone who worked in the reputation management industry, I find that there is an element of truth to your statement.

The essence if persuasion lies in enforcing your values onto another party. Media saturation has been a time-tested, and effective technique to ensure the right narrative is conveyed.

However, the mediums have changed in the modern era, therefore the technique, although still valid, must be adapted for the age of social media and instant gratification.

"Enforcing"?

Human interaction is fundamentally persuasive, even when completely unintentional. I don't think you can get around that.

You can get around it. A couple weeks ago I had friends over while their place had to be vacated for a few hours, they bought lunch, we played with cats

You can go after "all altruism is selfish" argument but you'll end up having to settle with "some altruism is more selfish than others"

I find that experience to be persuasive, as well. It persuades me about the kindness of your friends.

You weren't a part of this interaction. You're going with the "How can you tell if someone is vegan? ..they'll tell you" joke

Do you not find yourself to be naturally persuaded by your friends through your time and experiences with them?

Sometimes, but not always

Another situation: when I play chess online I'm interacting with people. You can argue they're persuading me about how best to play chess, but that isn't their motive nor is there a set conclusion they're trying to make me reach

You should narrow persuasion from "interaction" to a kind of conversation (such as those found in HN threads), otherwise you could start arguing all information inputs are persuasion regardless of whether the source is human

Appeals to emotions, bias, fear, and arguments from authority have always been used to persuade people.

See Aristotle's Rhetoric. Ethos, pathos.

This is a legit startup idea I’d pay for. “De-radicalize your parents”. It gets their ad profiled and crafts a campaign highly targeted with an ever non-radical content stream.

For reals - y’all reading this now - right or wrong, this is a thing that’s needed. I have no idea what I’d pay... 50/mo? 1000 for a full campaign? But it’d be substantial.

Fun irony: Simultaneously, conception's parents were paying the same company to finagle conception's feed.

The one thing both ad drips agreed on was that this company was the absolute best.

How is this different from paying to remove ads altogether? It will start out true to the idea, but then over time the companies will slowly start to double dip, re-radicalizing the content because that gets more engagement.

Oh yeah 100%, no doubt. But I can dream.

Much like John Oliver's show paid to have "informative" commercials run on Fox news in the DC area specifically targeting the US president. It is perfectly legal but expensive.

> Minds are changed through social media.

Respectfully disagree. I think minds are being changed by news sources and real-life experiences, and social media is reinforcing the views of each tribe.

Minds are changed by all inputs but some are more effective than others.

I don't think it is a stretch to assume "community consensus" is the most effective way to change minds.

That (in both cases, perceived) consensus can be accessed through either "traditional" or "social" media but either way people decide based mostly on "What does everyone else think about this?"

> minds are being changed by news sources

Optimistic of you. For everyone else, social media supplants traditional news.

> and real-life experiences

For many, social media is reality. Enough to end lives, livelihoods, and each other's patience at least.

The Wolves of Nova Scotia :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com