Hacker News Reader

Comment by notacoward | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point. A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here. I'm seeing a lot of people citing the exact same highly-dubious articles, which takes us further from figuring out the empirical truth on a complex set of issues. Those citations are also often accompanied by other claims on other topics (or even simple abuse), also familiar but unrelated except for ideological affiliation.

I'm not saying there's any kind of conspiracy - no coordination is required here - but there definitely seems to be a zeitgeist of people taking out pent-up frustration on their political opponents today. And it's clearly happening right here as well, though FWIW I don't consider your own comment to be part of that. You raised a perfectly valid point; others, not so much.

View on HN

censorship attenuates the truth to its true significance.

-Some powerful newspeak there bud

>I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point.

Please don't deny The Science. You sound like an antivaxer.

>A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here.

So? If something is true who cares if a lot of people talk about it and like the content? It doesn't appear to be artificially inflated so it is just a lot of people talking about it.

> Please don't deny The Science.

I'm not denying anything. In four short words I explicitly accepted my interlocutor's claim. Please don't misrepresent.

> You sound like an antivaxer.

Empty insults aren't helpful either, or allowed by guidelines. When they're obviously contrary to reality, they're actually laughable. I mean, really? This is the level of counterargument you have to offer?

> If something is true who cares if a lot of people talk about it and like the content?

Strawman. This isn't at all about who talks about or likes the content. It's about attempts to mislead people, even if no actual untruth is uttered. Even the law, which is usually pretty strict about requiring proof of wrongdoing, recognizes that omission and misrepresentation can be equivalent to actual untruth. My "good guy with a gun" example makes the same point elsewhere in this thread. When a person or group of people goes around Twitter citing the same weak study about myocarditis and vaccines a hundred times, they're trying to inflate its actual significance relative to dozens of stronger papers on all sides of that same issue. They're using it to instill fear, not to inform. When done for an ideological purpose, as it often clearly is, that's disinformation.

Please note that I'm not trying to prove or disprove any point about vaccines or myocarditis. Go have that poo-flinging contest somewhere else. Consistent with the topic of this submission, I'm trying to address the issue of an uptick in certain tactics that people on all sides use, which pollute public discourse and make all of our lives worse. It's really sad that every one of the responses has only illustrated more of the same problem.

>I'm not denying anything. In four short words I explicitly accepted my interlocutor's claim. Please don't misrepresent.

>Empty insults aren't helpful either, or allowed by guidelines. When they're obviously contrary to reality, they're actually laughable. I mean, really? This is the level of counterargument you have to offer?

I was being sarcastic.

Antivaxxers say "I'm sure the virus is real" or "I'm sure the booster will protect us this time".

I should have been more clear. I assumed it was obvious with capitalizing "The Science".

>Strawman. This isn't at all about who talks about or likes the content. It's about attempts to mislead people, even if no actual untruth is uttered.

So what is the solution. We can't know the motives of people when they say truthful stuff. Should we suppress truthful things when it becomes too popular because somebody may abuse the truth?

The reason why people are so heavily pushing myocarditis is because we were told the vaccines were completely safe and anybody who disagrees is an antivaxxer conspiracy theorist. This is just incorrect.

>Even the law, which is usually pretty strict about requiring proof of wrongdoing, recognizes that omission and misrepresentation can be equivalent to actual untruth.

I haven't seen any misrepresentation or omission on this subject (not that I have looked much). Every post I have seen have talked about young men having the issue not everybody.

>My "good guy with a gun" example makes the same point elsewhere in this thread. When a person or group of people goes around Twitter citing the same weak study about myocarditis and vaccines a hundred times, they're trying to inflate its actual significance relative to dozens of stronger papers on all sides of that same issue. They're using it to instill fear, not to inform. When done for an ideological purpose, as it often clearly is, that's disinformation.

That is just not the definition of disinformation. Disinformation must be false information.

You are also just making massive assumptions about people's motives. How would you like if I did the same to you? The only reason why you are saying this topic is disinformation is because you want young boys to die from myocarditis. See how dumb that is?

If you're going to call something "disinfo," that thing should at a minimum be required to be untrue.

Maybe you don't understand what disinformation is. It's not just about saying things that are factually untrue, because that's easily countered. More often it's about changing the interpretation or emphasis to promote a preferred narrative and/or create an illusion of popular support. Other times the goal is just to sow confusion or conflict.

For example, consider how "good guy with a gun" incidents are covered by the media. Some would say they're inappropriately suppressed in mainstream news. Others would say they're inappropriately celebrated in niche news or entertainment. I'm not here to say which is right, but both could be considered disinformation. They're trying to shift the narrative toward an ideological position, regardless of actual truth or proportionality.

So no, I don't agree that something must be untrue to be called disinformation. Presenting it that way is itself kind of treading the line.

There is a difference between an instance of an individual person sharing a true idea to convince others, and an organization which claims to report the news but selectively reports true news for propagandistic purposes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com