Hacker News Reader

Comment by m348e912 | Hacker News Reader

You could ask the secretary of commerce, but I suspect she doesn't know.

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1826378177754935482

The sad thing is that she’s one of the smarter ones in the Biden-Harris administration.

Let’s not forget that the Biden-Harris CHAIR of the Council of Economic Advisors doesn’t have the faintest idea of how government borrowing or expansion of the money supply works. https://x.com/findingmoneydoc/status/1786050601236779078?s=4...

This guys posting history is extremely partisan, it really undermines the message

Do you think the video is a deep fake because you don’t like Republicans?

The cut makes it sound like she “isn’t familiar” with the Bureau of Labor. I assume she said “with that figure” or something of the sort :)

It’s a bad response, but also not surprising, since her job is to be ra-ra-ra. (Which isn’t me excusing her, not by any means.)

Indeed. Given the cut, and not being able to find this interview elsewhere, I don't put much stock in this video.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/examining-vp-harris-ec...

Thanks! Good to know it wasn't cut to misrepresent the quote. I still don't think she meant she's unfamiliar with the Bureau of Labor, rather that specific issue.

No, I don't think the video is a deep fake. What I think is this guy is clearly a troll whose concerns about job number revisions are clearly disingenuous. I think when you include hyper-partisan framing around your message, it undermines the message then if you had just presented it directly.

It's also not Republicans that I don't like, it's the professional concern trolls that I don't care for.

That sir is called an ad hominem. Judge the information, not the messenger.

I do generally agree with such approach - information, not messenger. However there's a concept of reputation which doesn't go away in many cases - and this could be one of them.

So, someone's reputation matters when they post a video of someone else? Can you not just judge the video for yourself and seek more context if you need it?

Post history has importance when considering whether someone’s ignorantly sharing partisan propaganda or not. Don’t feed trolls.

I feel like I'm being trolled left and right here.

>Post history has importance when considering whether someone’s ignorantly sharing partisan propaganda or not.

Yes but it doesn't tell you whether the thing is good information or not! Not everything that is "propaganda" is bad information. Especially in cases of "partisan" issues, you have to look at both sides of it because it often happens that one side denies or misrepresents the other side. I can't believe I have to explain all of this...

Reputation matters when the listener decides what to do with the message. Are those the facts, are enough facts fairly represented. Judging a video could be complicated if you don't know - or can reliably estimate - those things, and if you need more context all the time, it's becoming pretty hard to watch videos. Hence reputation.

Fair enough, it is actually work to do research. But that doesn't make the video wrong. People have time to comment on here and talk crap about a source, but not a few minutes to watch a video and find out possibly insightful information. I think people have wrong priorities here, and the real objectives of comments about reputation are to prevent other people from watching the very thing that you don't feel like watching, and farm internet points in the process.

I'm not saying the video is wrong. I'm saying that often when you have to consider the message, to understand the message, to put it into perspective you need to understand the messenger. If you have one part of information readily available and another part not, you may register the information as a sort of "conditional" one - you don't "feel" a good understanding of it. For example, if you convey this information to somebody else, can you answer basic questions about that? If not, then maybe you don't have a good understanding. The mentioning in this branch is that who's the messenger could be important to understand the message, and the previous history is what you may rely on.

300%. It's not a fallacy to understand the biases of the information you are consuming. If someone looks bad because of their past that's important reader context.

It's a fallacy to use personage as a sole reason to disagree. But it's damned good to have context. This whole social media thing is such a quagmire imo in large part because every tweet comes across naked, that no matter how low your character or how much you've distorted and manipulated in the past, each tweet is a totally fresh chance to do to again with no one the wiser. We seriously need systems for establishing context, and it's a public service to earn each other about patterns of distortion & ultra-bias.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com