Hacker News Reader

Comment by aww_dang | Hacker News Reader

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbd9m/vice-guardian-poll-am...

Compare these statistics with the narrative promoted by the MSM sources featured on YT's "National News" channel.

Yes, those who downvote self-select as those who are willing to downvote. I find it illustrative that you need to dismiss them as, "excess idle time YouTube arrow clickers". Couldn't the same be said for the time you spent writing your comment here? Does your characterization of their idle time make their opinion less valid?

>profoundly deluded...

Perhaps instead of trying to dismiss this dissent as part of an echo-chamber, you might look in the mirror and ask if your perception of these issues is governed by your own echo-chamber?

It is a bit rich to step into this discussion on these terms. The topic is the MSM echo-chamber and how it is out of touch with a large portion of viewers. Removing downvotes is perceived as a defense of this failing paradigm.

View on HN

I have no clue what your vice link is supposed to demonstrate, or how it is remotely relevant. Maybe you linked the wrong thing.

> Perhaps instead of trying to dismiss this dissent as part of an echo-chamber, you might look in the mirror and ask if your perception of these issues is governed by your own echo-chamber?

Throughout this thread there are a small number of people declaring that likes/dislikes lets you detect "propaganda", "misinformation", or demonstrates "public opinion". This is laughably, ridiculous untrue. Any actual poll has perilously little in common with the ratios seen on YouTube.

If 45% of the polled population doesn't believe the MSM narrative, per the "Vice News" (An outlet with a palatable bias) article doesn't that speak to your comment above?

Perhaps you could make the case that votes should follow the lines of the poll. That's a bit besides the point isn't it? The point is that coverage has become so egregiously out-of-touch that these downvotes are common.

I can understand and appreciate how someone who might agree with a large swath of the MSM propaganda bubble would have a hard time understanding this. This is of course, the purpose of propaganda.

AGW is factual reality, not a "MSM narrative".

Even if we think scientific fact changes based upon polling, "MSM" videos on YouTube aren't 55% positive, they're often < 5% positive. Because some people truly believe that clicking a little arrow on YouTube, or disagreeing with a "narrative", changes reality. A tiny minority, and ultimately the total engagement level is a rounding error generally, but throughout this discussion we've seen people take that tiny, self-selecting group and hold it as universal truth.

This is all besides the point, as I mentioned above.

The narrative promoted by YT and the MSM isn't accepted by around 50% of the US. Pick any contentious issue you feel is settled and take an honest look at the dissenting views. Consider any malign incentives of the claim you support. If you're not capable of this, then check your tooling.

Regardless of your attempts to lay claim to "objective truths" or "reality", there's a narrative surrounding these issues. Taking subjective perception and describing it as "reality" as you have above is going to be problematic. These are basic concepts that need to be dealt with before you can examine the natural world or media narratives.

>"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best." Thomas Sowell

Perhaps these videos are downvoted because viewers find them to be egregious deceptions?

It is fine to imply that there should be a 50/50 split in YT votes, but this ignores the disgust factor. It also ignores how engaged proponents of these views may or may not be. A simple explanation might be that the level of disgust of the dissenters exceeds the halfhearted engagement of the proponents. Which again, is besides the point.

You speak of delusion before claiming an exclusive license on "reality", but at the same time you wish to discount the evidence before your very eyes, the vocal dissent here and elsewhere. That's your prerogative. You're free to believe what you will, but don't expect to sell others on it. Trying to dismiss dissent as delusion exceeds these concepts. Of course you are free to believe what you will, just as others are free to dissent. Again, a basic issue of logic.

https://www.axios.com/media-trust-crisis-2bf0ec1c-00c0-4901-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com