Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyzelement | Hacker News Reader

I observe something like this in the way people react to what's going on in the news.

Example: compared to most people, I am "better" positioned to understand what's going on in Ukraine - my dad and both inlaws are from there and speak the language. I grew up in former USSR and speak fluent Russian so I can also watch and read things closer to the source.

And yet, I don't claim to understand anything that's going on in Ukraine because ~none~ of the information I see can be considered unbiased. So I can chose to believe one set but not the other set of data or I can say "I am not equipped to understand this."

Meanwhile, tons of people who are objectively less equipped to suss out the situation, don't feel this hesitation to have an opinion. Intellectually, if you ask them 'does propaganda exist, and is it amped up in a war situation' they will say 'of course, every time' and then they'll go and believe what they read (be in in a Western or Russian source, doesn't matter.)

This is not a complaint, it's actually something quite empowering to understand.

View on HN

You only realize how uninformed the media is when it covers something you know very well. I experienced this in grad school when Newsweek magazine profiled some work my lab was doing (physics), and they made a lot of simple mistakes we could've easily corrected.

This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

This is a really excellent point, both in general and vis a vis the conflict in Ukraine. Something I see happening often is that some people are quick to confuse expertise-as-credential with expertise-as-substance, or to assume that anyone who has above average knowledge of some relevant subject area that relates to some aspect of the war is immune to emotionally biased interpretations.

Are you saying that the information about Russia's war is unduly biased? I ask because all communication is biased, obviously to very different degrees, and for very different reasons.

I try to be as open and honest as possible about my biases, and constantly reexamine my current and past beliefs.

What do you mean by unduly biased.

Bias, at least for me, means erroneous or misleading.

I think all people are biased and imperfect, but that doesn't mean that all communication is biased. Unbiased communication takes a lot more work, but isn't impossible.

Our definitions of bias in this context seem, mine aligns with the first Merriam Webster definition -

  1 a : an inclination of temperament or outlook
    especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
  b : an instance of such prejudice

I consider undue bias to basically be deliberate deception about the information itself or the biases of the source.

This is important because, as another commenter in this thread said, we always have an imperative to act amid imperfect information.

edit: Obviously you can choose to not act, but inaction seems like the opposite of empowerment to me.

When you talk about bias as an adjective, you can have a biased person or biased communication . Humans are vastly complex so you can't have unbiased humans without omniscience.

Language and data however are different. You can have unbiased communication and data.

The statement 2 + 2 = 4 in the base 10 number system is unbiased.

To say unbiased language does not exist is saying that truth does not exist.

I'll clarify myself - all communication of imperfect knowledge is biased. I'm afraid we're falling into a overly pedantic semantic quibble though.

The context we're talking about is how much we can understand about a war. I understand that Russia invaded Ukraine, and that nothing Ukraine's done even begins justifies a full on, bloody invasion.

Sorry if you saw my point is off track. I was commenting more on the nature of bias given the topic of the submission.

I do think understanding biases important in determining how you act. Both in this crisis in future ones, and hopefully hopeful and avoiding future ones.

When it comes to the Ukrainian crisis, I think a major bias in the common understanding is neglecting the choices the US made that let us do the current state. That's not to say that it is the US's fault, but I think it is reasonable to ask how we got here and could it have been avoided with different choices. Should it have been avoided if it could have been?

So far, the war has been one of the best things to ever happen to US geopolitics since the Cold War ended

Yeah it’s a war, there isn’t much more bias information you’re going to see. I looked into half the stories Google promoted me when I did a random search about an Ukraine topic and it was basically all US MSM which cited “experts” that were former US intelligence. This also held true for Bing because appearantly US MSM is the place to get unbiased reputable information about the war in Ukraine (???)

The only place I could get a different view was Yandex who rigged their search results to show a bunch of small anti-US bloggers since the Ruskies run Yandex. Also RT right near the top.

So I have to choose between a bunch of shills the US and it’s MSM puppets promoted, or a bunch of shills the Russians promoted plus some bloggers who would believe the US is responsible for cancer and heart disease.

None of these search engines promote sources which could be seen as relatively neutral like Al Jazeera or Chinese news or whatever. I never see people promote random substacks of independent media. Almost everything I read about this war is planted by government shills of one sort or another that are boosting search results and so on. I was around for the Iraq war and yeah that war made it incredibly obvious how THROUGHLY untrustworthy the mainstream media is regarding war reporting and their love of killing the innocent with lies. I’ve fallen for propaganda before because it’s impossible not to because there’s such a freaking torrent of it.

But no matter the bias, you can get some facts that should allow you to make some judgements like Russia invaded Ukraine to "defend" breakaway republics it propped up itself by trying to blockade Ukraine's two largest cities. Russia is the aggressor and is shooting rockets at civilians and doing generally bad stuff like torturing people. That is "biased" but it's biased toward truth. Seeing anything anti-Russian as a government shill is going to lead you to seeing conspiracy theories everywhere because Russia legitimately is the bad guy here.

It's entirely possible for both sides of a war to be the bad guys.

I don't know how many, if any, of the charges that have been levied against Ukraine are true, but given the history of the US, we should know better than to assume that we are on the right side, or that we are being told the whole truth.

And we obviously aren't being told the real reason for the war. If torturing people, invading another country, and firing missiles at civilians were sufficient reason to oppose another country, we wouldn't support the Saudis.

Why are you trying to change the subject from Russia aggression to US aggression? Something's aren't about the US, and viewing this war in that lens completely takes agency away from Ukraine and Russia. Instead, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine. Russia has nuclear weapons and promised to guarantee Ukraine's borders in exchange for them giving up theirs. Instead, Russia invaded and took territory from them in 2014. When that wasn't enough, they did it again a year ago. Before 2014, Ukraine barely had a military and posed no threat to anyone. What possible reason could Russia have to invade Ukraine that would justify this?

Usa is a super power. Pretty much every geopolitical conflict is going to have at least something to do with usa. That is kind of implicit in the definition of super power.

"Having something to do with" doesn't mean explains, and only talking about the US still takes all agency away from other actors.

Sure USA isn't the only actor here, but pretending they aren't a factor in this conflict and the geopolitical situation, is the same level of misleading as pretending they are the only factor.

I'm sure you know what happened in 2014. Let's think about it for a moment from the Russian perspective:

A violent revolution in which the democratically elected pro-Russian President was driven out, followed by "pro-Russian unrest"[1] and civil war between the new government of Ukraine and separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine who support the old government (and Russia)[2].

That war had been ongoing for eight years when the Russians justified the invasion of Ukraine by recognizing the separatists as independent states calling for Russian aid.[3]

And historically, the US has considered intervention in a civil war to be sufficient justification for invasion. It's hypocritical to argue that it's ok for us but not for Russia.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukr...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%9320...

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_...

The state department might have to deal with that paradox in press briefings (haha, as if that question would get asked) but as an internet commenter I have no problem stating the obvious: it's bad.

There was no civil war before Russia manufactured it to take advantage of political instability and invade. There is no reason to speak of "pro-Russian separatists" as anything distinct from Russian armed forces. It's baffling how so many people in the west can't see through this simple deception. Russia saw an opportunity to invade, set up puppet states and then came to their rescue.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled last month:

> Among other things, the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It referred to the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy; that it had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR” and over the following months and years; that it had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists; and that it had provided political and economic support to the separatists.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&...

All of that, save the artillery strikes, is also true of the US in western Ukraine: presence of military personnel; significant influence on military strategy; provided weapons, political, and economic support.

That certainly doesn't mean western Ukraine is "under the jurisdiction of" the US, so I don't see how that claim is justified about Russia.

And your own source acknowledges that the violence began before the Russian presence:

> In early March 2014, pro-Russian protests began across eastern regions of Ukraine, including the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (“Donbass”). Some of the protestors formed armed groups and the violence rapidly escalated, with pro-Russian separatists seizing public buildings

Note that's in March, before "the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest"

> All of that, save the artillery strikes, is also true of the US in western Ukraine: presence of military personnel; significant influence on military strategy; provided weapons, political, and economic support.

The US has no comparable presence of military personnel in Ukraine, its armed forces have not taken control of any region of Ukraine. Furthermore, the aid that 50+ countries provide is in official support of the internationally recognized government and not of a mix of thugs and Russian intelligence operatives who have violently stormed a government building.

> And your own source acknowledges that the violence began before the Russian presence:

Yes, and Russia "had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR”".

The point is, these are Ukranians who asked for Russian help, both in 2014 and in 2022:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-allies-step-up-sanct...

What would the US do if tens of thousands of Americans asked for help after a coup in another country?

The link you posted demonstrates how ridiculous that point is. By the time Russian operatives disguised as DNR and LNR leaders asked for "help", Russia had been amassing army on Ukraine's borders for months, not to mention that LNR and DNR themselves had been for many years under total Russian control, as ruled by ECHR. This was Russian military administration of occupied territories creating a pretext for wider invasion, nothing more.

That link says Denis Pushilin (a Ukrainian) asked for help. It says nothing about "Russian operatives disguised as DNR and LNR leaders".

He is employed by the Russian military administration to project an image as if the occupied territories were independent separatist areas. ECHR found that untrue. LNR and DNR remain under direct Russian control.

> I don't know how many, if any, of the charges that have been levied against Ukraine are true,

In terms of valid reasons to go to war, i dont think any of the reasons russia provided really make sense, even if you consider the other side extremely biased.

Just because both sides are very biased, does not mean you can't critically evaluate the arguments. Bias means you should be cautious not discard all reasoning.

> And we obviously aren't being told the real reason for the war. If torturing people, invading another country, and firing missiles at civilians were sufficient reason to oppose another country, we wouldn't support the Saudis.

Moral justification for wars always differ from geopolitical reasons. That is true for literally every war ever. In this case its pretty obvious that its a fight over what russia's sphere of influence should be along with various strategic resources in ukraine (oil, port access). Letting russia invade a country for essentially deciding to have closer ties to the west, is a terrible precedent for the west, because other countries will see that and be less likely to pursue ties. So its not really a surprise they got involved.

Consider OpenAI vs Google in the chat AI stand off (who is David who is Goliath here). Then consider does it makes sense to talk about it without considering Microsoft vs Google?

// That is "biased" but it's biased toward truth

The point of the comment that started this thread is: how would you know?

All you know is that in war, propaganda is ubiquitous, and that the way propaganda "feels" when it has worked is that 'oh, I know what's true."

Now given that you are likely far removed from the conflict and are fairly limited in sources of information about it - what are the odds that you stumbled on the truth, vs you had consumed/bought into propaganda? They'd feel the same way, which is more likely.

And I say that independently of what your actual views are.

The only evidence I have that these countries even exist is hearsay; I’ve never seen them.

For all I know it could be an elaborate prank (unlikely as that seems).

The human sense of reality boils down to “this input seems real enough to accept as fact”, and internalising that idea really helped me to stop and listen to the people in my life.

"None of these search engines promote sources which could be seen as relatively neutral like Al Jazeera or Chinese news or whatever."

I had to read this twice to check this is what had actually been written..

None of this is strictly incorrect, but it's a mistake to conclude that since all sides are biased the truth is unknowable and you might as well throw up your hands and retreat entirely. In fact, the goal of disinformation isn't necessarily to make you believe things that are wrong, the goal is to create enough confusion to make you believe that you simply can't know what's going on.

If you assign equal weight to NASA and flat earth websites you might as well conclude that apparently there is controversy among so-called "experts", so who knows, maybe the earth is round and maybe it isn't. You can think this way, but it's clearly bullshit. While NASA isn't magic and they have made mistakes and have lost spacecraft, their level of credibility isn't equal to flat-earthers.

The governments of the United States (and the European and Asian democracies) and Russia both have agendas and both push narratives they want you to believe. This is true. But if you think the democratic and totalitarian governments are equally trustworthy you're deluding yourself.

Couldn't agree more on "it is a mistake to conclude...the truth is unknowable"

Just ask yourself: who benefits? (aka follow the money). For example, short term: where the increase in military spendings go?

On basic facts: you could compare economic military power of various countries (order of magnitude is enough), the number of countries bombed (order of magnitude is enough), the number of military bases (order of magnitude is enough), etc. Then make your own conclusions.

I get what you are saying but I think the analogy of NASA and flat earth is not appropriate.

To entertain that example: I've been to the southern hemisphere and I've seen the toilet flush the other way. I've seen the curvature of the earth from an airplane.

Perhaps more importantly, there's consensus among many disconnected and conflicting parties (eg: Soviet and US space programs)

And even most importantly - I don't see the motive to lie. NASA's funding isn't contingent on the earth being spherical.

That's totally different than a hot war going on right now, where the belligerents disagree on everything from what led up to it to how many casualties there are on each side. That's probably the most difficult situation for you as an outsider to suss out - your own information is low and there's a big reward for making you see one narrative or the other.

> I've been to the southern hemisphere and I've seen the toilet flush the other way.

That’s a myth, by the way.

It is totally not a myth. I have seen it.

I guess technically, the water flushes the same way but it looks backwards to you because you're looking at it upside down.

It’s a myth.

• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coriolis-effect/

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coriolis_force&ol...

>But if you think the democratic and totalitarian governments are equally trustworthy you're deluding yourself.

The totalitarian Saddam Hussein said he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, which was true, and the democratic government of the United States said he did, which was false.

A million people died because people decided to trust a democracy more than they trusted a totalitarian government. Because they trusted the largest media outlets of that democracy who all helped sell the governments lies. Because that level of analysis simply isn't good enough.

If people at the time had only listened to uninvolved third parties, nobody would have died, as they were pointing out the flimsiness of the democracies case.

I haven’t been following the news lately but early on in the war it was obvious to me that the U.S. media was at least minimizing reports of Ukranian casualties, and possibly inflating those of Russia. This is “expected” since we are aligned with the former

It should go without saying that any coverage of a war is going to be extremely biased, doubly so from places that are participating in it (including usa, because they clearly have a strong geopolitical interest in the outcome)

That is just how war works.

It took me a while to parse your comment, but I am glad I did.

I don't know about "unduly" but I'd say that out of all situations, war is probably the one where we can except the most extreme bias.

War literally means "we are willing to kill and die to win this" - so obviously "lie and spin" is going to happen whenever possible.

> War literally means "we are willing to kill and die to win this"

I think you are overly equating the aggressor with the victim. The victim is more "we are willing to kill and die to avoid having <something> forced on us".

Sure, "winning" is just short-hand for "avoid having..." you're using. The point is, either way - if you're willing to fight and die for it, you're going to be willing to lie for it. So as someone far away, I have to assume that everything I am seeing is someone's preferred spin on it, and that I have no way to decide what's what.

Before the full scale invasion started, Ukraine was repeatedly saying "hey I think Russia's going wage war with us really soon, can you keep an eye on this?" The US and others agreed. Russia said "we're absolutely not going to start a war, and the people saying we're going to war are lying." Then Russia started a war.

While there are degrees of uncertainty, we must not, in turn, ignore facts.

At the end of the day, people like a black and white narrative that they can keep all in their head. Even if you had all the facts at hand for a given situation, there are too many factors interacting with each other in different ways for any one person to actually understand what is happening. You only ever gleam bits and pieces of the actual interaction network between these nodes, and your brain looks to build out the paths as best as it can guess if they are unknown, like a Rorschach test where your brain sees an elephant in spilled ink.

Given all of this, its probably best not to focus so much of ones thoughts and efforts on these things you will never fully understand, things that really don't make a difference in your day to day life, systemic things you can't even change even if they did, when there is just too much to focus on that's much more pressing in life where you can make some actionable changes, like the events that take place right in your neighborhood or in your very home. News is fine for entertainment, but people should see it as such, not the absolute source of truth (if there even is such a thing given all the latent variables for anything at all).

Of course, there's no money in convincing people to go work out, clean up their house, read some books to improve their skills, to tinker on some personal project. There is plenty of money in convincing people to put all of that aside, however, and be locked into the content you drip out thats coated in advertisement, so that's where the incentives lie. Not in self help or betterment, but in maximizing the return these organizations get from offering you as a product for their customers whose business exists to milk you of your wages.

In the end there is an imperative to act*. Even if we don't understand as well as we'd like, we don't get to just shrug and say "I dunno". We have to go with our best guess (perhaps hedging a bit against other possibilities) and hope for the best. Yes we might be misled by propaganda. Still we must act.

* I'm defining act broadly here as any kind of policy choice. Sending humanitarian aid, or not sending it. Sending military aid or not sending it. Voicing our support, or not voicing our support. Encouraging surrender, or not encouraging surrender.

"Truth is the first casualty of war" goes the saying.

This was recently on display with the Ghost of Kyiv killing over 850,000 enemy platoons with a single bullet. I'm sure it was born out of some interesting story - maybe a rookie had a good dogfight or something, but BOY did that story grow and grow.

My only question is: how much propaganda came from states, vs. people taking an idea and running with it because it's a narrative they want to hear?

Or the rumors of mobile cremation chambers to incinerate corpses of crimes against humanity victims which circulated in the first few weeks, including copious photos, which all turned out to be some random heavy equipment.

Apparently there's even a wikipedia article on this, TIL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_usage_of_mobile_cremat...

btw, "ignore facts, you can't understand it" may be just a world view pushed by propaganda.

Some things are so huge, they become obvious if you just try to think & consider some numbers.

What do you mean? How do you distinguish between what's obvious because it's obvious vs it's obvious because you've been shown the dots to connect?

Things you have first hand experience with, I can agree you can decide is obvious.. anything where your main source of information is the news/internet? Not a chance

Reply on news.ycombinator.com