Hacker News Reader

Comment by yanderekko | Hacker News Reader

>The words you use are dangerously vague and you aren't calling for observable, thoughtful standards.

Which of course is arguably the point. There's just another type of "bad faith actor" who is lurking in the shadows with these arguments: Someone who wants to leverage censorship against disfavored viewpoints regardless of their truth value.

Given the choice between "let everyone speak even if someone might be lying" and "let only approved speakers speak even if the approval process may be corrupt", I'll take the former pretty much every time.

View on HN

> Given the choice between "let everyone speak even if someone might be lying" and "let only approved speakers speak even if the approval process may be corrupt", I'll take the former pretty much every time.

While I tend to agree with this sentiment, it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them. As such, letting everyone say whatever they want and expecting the lies to be exposed/countered by the truthspeakers is destined to fail. We've seen this exact thing play out on every social network.

> it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them

How could this possibly be true. If that were the case then you could simply lie to a person until they accept a more reasonable position. Instead of using facts and evidence to support your position just lie to them and make stuff up. The fact that you cling to evidence in your arguments (I assume) means you don't really believe lying will sway people to your perspective.

> We've seen this exact thing play out on every social network.

We haven't. It may be true but that data is not available to us. These could be bots, they could be new converts (with the old ones de-converting), they could be paid propagandists, or trolls. It could just be the algorithm promoting people who create engagement. These people could be incredibly rare but incredibly prominent on the platform.

When are you going to be affected by this theory? Are you swayed by lies and misinformation? Do you cling to beliefs in the face of fact and evidence? Are you undeserving of the right to speak because of it? Why should you have been allowed to leave this comment? You have not been vetted to make these statements.

>> it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them

> How could this possibly be true. If that were the case then you could simply lie to a person until they accept a more reasonable position. Instead of using facts and evidence to support your position just lie to them and make stuff up. The fact that you cling to evidence in your arguments (I assume) means you don't really believe lying will sway people to your perspective.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone is willing to play the same ends-justify-the-means game, where they're OK with shamelessly lying if it can momentarily get someone to align with their faction. What the GP describes is only a dilemma if you have a commitment to the truth.

Also what you describe (counter cheap lies with more cheap lies), would actually play into the hand of a disinformation actor. In many cases they're not looking to persuade anyone of of anything, just increase confusion, cynicism, and disengagement; which reduce their adversary's capacity for making decisions and taking action.

You have reduced my capacity for action and I am disengaging from this conversation. Because of this thread I no longer recognize Plate Tectonics and now believe in Expanding Earth Theory.

> You have reduced my capacity for action and I am disengaging from this conversation. Because of this thread I no longer recognize Plate Tectonics and now believe in Expanding Earth Theory.

That didn't come off as clever, BTW.

To give a minor example of this...

You want to get people to vote for your candidate. So you create social media posts saying the opponent voted against funds that would go to veterans. You don't need to look anything up, you just need to create the post. It's almost certainly true, because EVERY candidate has done this. However, it's extremely misleading...

Your opponent wants to make sure people understand the truth. The truth is that there were several bills that would fund veterans with a small amount of money, but they were all "add-ons" to other bills that did major things that the candidate did not approve of (for example, something like saying no state may provide a drivers license to anyone that is an ex-con). Now, in order make sure people understand the truth, you have to find the cases where the candidate in question voted against money for veterans, explain what the situation behind it was, and why there was "something bigger to consider" in each case.

Vs you, who only had to create a simple post.

The level of effort is in no way balanced.

> When are you going to be affected by this theory? Are you swayed by lies and misinformation? Do you cling to beliefs in the face of fact and evidence? Are you undeserving of the right to speak because of it?

I am generally not affected by this type of lie/misinformation, because I specifically look for it. That's not to say I'm never affected by it, just that I keep an eye out for that type of thing.

But I know for a fact that people I know and care about _are_ affected by it, and on a regular basis. Plus it's used to sway people I don't know, and those people vote. And I find it concerning that they will base their vote on incorrect information.

Being worried that they will base their vote on incorrect information is really, really close to being worried that they will vote incorrectly, period. Very few things in politics are so cut and dry that there's one "correct" fact.

But there is a big difference between "voted against X because it was a minor add-on to a bill that was overwhelmingly bad" and "voted against X when it was the focus of a bill; because the candidate is against X". The post in question implies the later, when the former is the actual truth (in my example).

I'm not trying to say someone is voting "wrong", because voting is a matter of opinion. But one should be able to base their opinion on actual truth, not lies. At the end of the day, if their opinion is based on lies they have been told, then it's really no different than secretly switching out the labels on the candidates in the voting machine.

It takes less effort to uncover a public lie than to uncover a hidden truth.

Alternatively worded, something about sunlight being the best disinfectant.

>> While I tend to agree with this sentiment, it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them. As such, letting everyone say whatever they want and expecting the lies to be exposed/countered by the truthspeakers is destined to fail. We've seen this exact thing play out on every social network.

> It takes less effort to uncover a public lie than to uncover a hidden truth.

> Alternatively worded, something about sunlight being the best disinfectant.

That's a slogan, not a truth. For instance: what is "best"? The fastest? The most thorough? Something guaranteed to work, if given enough time?

Even if "best" means it's the "fastest" disinfectant, that doesn't mean it's fast enough to keep up with the infections the op describes.

There's also the question: if you prove something is a lie, will enough people pay attention? A 140 character lie could take pages to debunk. Given enough lies, that page count is going to build up to the point where no one has time for it. And the actual audience of the debunking is unlikely to be a superset of the audience of the lie.

Proving a lie and relying on people to understand that is preferred to hiding uncomfortable truths. Never trust a censor. They always have agendas.

Even if this were true, insinuating that this necessitates that we need a Ministry of Truth to create diktats for us is pure Nirvana Fallacy. Platforms have been experimenting with all sorts of mechanisms to combat misinformation that do not involve the naked suppression of "harmful" perspectives, thankfully.

Oh, I'm with you on this point. I was merely pointing out that "let everyone speak their minds however they want and the truth will come out" is not realistic.

I'll agree to the MoT plan if I get to pick the MoT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com