Hacker News Reader

Comment by justbored123 | Hacker News Reader

That tells you that "marketplace of ideas" is a dumb idea, because we already have proved a million times that people are not the rational creatures that we were sold we were for a long time. We are smart apes, but apes none the least: emotionally driven by our limbic system, very tribal and status seeking. Prone to rationalize all these basic impulses in a million different ways creating the illusion of rational individualism. The algorithms just shows us our true nature, don't make the mistake of shooting the messenger.

View on HN

There is a marketplace of ideas. That's not anything that is ever going to change. Concepts spread and are accepted or they don't.

The question is only how. Is it going to be by dictate? Is a church or government or institution going to enforce which ideas spread, or is it going to be free, spreading at the level of the individual?

There is no moral alternative to the free exchange of ideas. The only alternative is a restricted exchange... censorship and punishment.

> or is it going to be free, spreading at the level of the individual?

And what are the consequences of that?

When people talk about the marketplace of ideas they tend to think of good, beneficial, ideas winning out over foolishness, conspiracy and just plain inaccuracy.

This has been shown up as naive lately. And if we really are talking about the "marketplace of ideas" being raw, Darwinian, strongest wins, then are we prepared to deal with the fallout of the fact that loud, motivated, well funded bullshit merchants will continue to have a huge grip over the public dialogue?

Censorship has also turned out recently to be a bad idea. Neither solution is perfect but since censorship has the basis to destroy information we should choose the less dangerous path of “do nothing”. What is so dangerous lately that has you concerned?

I feel you are possibly too cynical about the ability of people to (eventually) figure things out.

Because something is posted on the internet doesn't mean large numbers of people actually believe it.

There will always be "wrong" people. That will never change. But there is a degree of wisdom in crowds.

Proper education and "good" cultural values are extremely important and we haven't done so well instilling those lately.

Or that a few algorithms created by a few companies does not constitute anything remotely resembling a marketplace.

The usual idea of a marketplace is preserving people's freedom to go to alternatives. Yes, sometimes that freedom has to be preserved via intervention to preserve choices (e.g. antitrust laws), but it's always weird to me to see the critique used as a reason for less freedom rather than more.

People can choose to get their information from places other than the large platforms. To me, the "marketplace" is the internet as a whole. If people choose to stay on the platform, is it not similar to choosing CNN and not ever looking at Fox? In the end, people have many options but choose to limit which options they engage with

There’s a section in the EFF on why not being on the large networks is a detriment.

Also the shock "wrongthink" things we see on the internet might not be a representative sample of what the general public actually believes.

The marketplace of ideas works. It may not work in the timescale you want or with the tradeoffs you want while the truth settles out, but I think these claims that it doesn’t work are hasty.

Furthermore there isn’t a better alternative. Right now censorship from platform owners is abusively used to skew political discussions, using the pretense of factuality. I regularly see fact checkers make mistakes or make misleading claims or they inconsistent apply scrutiny. I see trusted organizations like old newspapers and health organizations (like the WHO) regularly make mistakes or sell their own speculation as incontrovertible truth. Trust cannot be given to a few lone entities. The marketplace of ideas doesn’t have this problem since it is decentralized.

If the algorithm distorts conversation, then how can you be sure it more accurately reflects human nature?

How does something that isn't a marketplace of ideas prove it's dumb? Or should this question be punished by your algorithm?

The main agenda the algorithm has is selecting stuff human nature has a high propensity to click on...

Alternatively, it simply makes it easier to click on the presented content than to purposely seek out other content. Front pages and headlines dominate media for a reason.

Kind of like drug cartels having the agenda of producing drugs that human nature has a high propensity to be drawn to?

In the face of hyperstimuli, we can't talk about mere human propensities as a justification, else we would have already turned ourselves into junkies many times over.

How many years did it take for heroin go from a cough medicine to a schedule I drug? Amphetamines, cigarettes etc.

There is a reason you can't put simply everything on the marketplace, and that is OK. That doesn't mean the idea of a marketplace is broken.

That's an assumption which critics of these algorithms would disagree with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com