Hacker News Reader

Comment by yellow_lead | Hacker News Reader

Misinformation is extremely hard to counter because it's hard to attribute information correctly. Conspiracy theorists may be flagged as state actors by mistake and then have their media countered publicly. This amplifies their message and validates their concern.

View on HN

If their concerns are validated, are they still "conspiracy theorists"?

I mean, this reads a bit like "don't kill rabbits or else those people who say you kill rabbits will be further validated with their conspiracy theories!"

It validates the concern in their mind. I should have added that. It may depend on the conspiracy though. If your conspiracy is around government propaganda, it may objectively be validated by being countered by propaganda.

Misinformation is hard to counter because ignorant are easily persuaded by what they want to hear regardless of authenticity. It’s primarily why people prefer news only from certain sources that fit their political lean or why some people prefer social media gossip over news.

Its more fundamental than that. People are biased, will consciously disregard information that runs counter to their biases even when they know its true. There is almost nobody who is truly committed to the truth for the sake of the truth. People will compromise to lies for all sorts of reasons. Its Human nature.

Objectivity is an identifiable and measurable personality trait. It’s rare, but not as rare as you suggest. Objectivity is completely orthogonal to intelligence and generally inflates the appearance of a person’s intelligence but can also do the opposite if counter to a deeply invested truth.

That, and it only takes an honest chat with someone from a given group to work out what to say that they can't help but believe.

> This amplifies their message and validates their concern

Also known as the Streisand effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

No, the Streisand effect has to do with censored (i.e. made inaccessible) information, not countered information.

The Streisand Effect refers to the outcome of an attempt to suppress information, eg. having your lawyer threaten to sue a news organization. The attempt need not be successful.

Maybe more clearly - the Sreisand Effect is the resultant *BackLash* to censorship attempts

Censorship happens.

Censorship attempts happen.

The Streisand Effect is a backlash to the failed attempt at censoring something which a minority wants to keep information from a majority.

---

I think there are some higher-level Streisand-Effects that we have yet to experience.

Of which, it will always, ultimately, manifest as a violent act against those who are publishing (regardless of medium), information which the opposing elite(^Citation Needed) - want to quell...

I'd really rather avoid using the word 'censorship' in this context, it doesn't require government involvement.

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. Is it unreasonable to expect a similar phenomenon to occur for countered information?

It's an interesting question. I feel like both turn on "What they don't want you to know!" mental lures.

But I'd guess there are some subtle differences? If a debate is being had about a thing, it's hard to say "they" don't want you to know.

It's quite similar, but you're technically right according to the wiki definition. I think both evoke similar feelings in the original poster or poster's Internet social circle.

I think "The government doesn't like us saying this" headlines would have the same effect despite the precise difference in definition here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com