Because, for better or worse, the sources of truth that normal people historically relied on for their barometer of what is true or not have been democratized by the internet.
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
Most of these ideas aren't new, but in decades past you might have heard about them from a conspiracy-therorist neighbor, a low profile website, or an alternative magazine with little reputation of its own.
Now, these ideas are spread on the exact same platforms as objectively truthful / scientifically sound media. Your Youtube conspiracy theory channel is right next to the BBC's videos. Your viral Facebook post could be from the New York Times, or it might be from a propaganda organization - or worse, an account that looks like a normal person but which was specifically created to spread misinformation that seems plausibly truthful.
Credibility is distributed and anyone can publish to a huge audience, which is wonderful sometimes, and othertimes deeply problematic, because the viewer often doesn't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction and can't trust the publisher at face value anymore.
Its uncharted territory. The cost to distribute is zero, and ideas spread far and wide - but that means that there are equally as many incredible sources on any given topic as credible ones, and telling the difference is hard, and sometimes not knowing the difference is dangerous. Dunning-Kruger writ large.
The question is, if it's hard to figure out who you can trust, then who can you trust to decide what's fact and what's fiction?
I think trusting any one person or organization to decide is dangerous. Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.
I'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion.
Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.
Sure, but many things being discussed are beyond biases at this point. POTUS tweets and says completely false things every single day. This isn't downplaying things he disagrees with or spinning, it's flat out lying and/or denying they even exist.
There was a long thread here on HN about HCQ, and some were asking for proof that HCQ does not work. No, that is completely the opposite of how science, and drug research in particularly, works. Drugs are considered non-working until proven otherwise and never the other way around.
I'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion.
I understand what you're saying, but I shouldn't have to prove 1+1=2 every time I want to have a discussion. Let's take vaccines for example. They have been proven safe and effective many times over. They do not cause autism. In this case, what is the other side of the argument? On my side it's tons of peer reviewed research and on the other it's a few quacks with falsified/misinterpreted/unreplicable/bad science. What is there to actually argue? This is where I normally get frustrated because there are so many topics that can be vigorously argued in good faith, but if we can't agree to some basic 'this is how the scientific method works' then what's the point.
I appreciate it. I'm honestly surprised its initial reception has been so unpopular, but I suspect people think I'm somehow advocating for censorship... I'm not at all, and think that's obvious, but c'est la vie.
Conspiracy theory-type ideas are a threat, but I just want to add on that many partial truths or inaccuracies or falsehoods appealing to biases spread even more easily too. Depending on your side of the debate, you can make well-cited cases for or against minimum wage increasing unemployment, or immigration lowering wages. I haven't researched, but I bet mail-voting fraud too. To the point where the real truth isn't even clear, but people don't recognize the uncertainty.
I'm not sure if this ever hasn't been an issue, but it kinda comes to the heart of fact-checking. I think treating the kinds of falsehoods that get spread online as just obvious conspiracy-theories by nutjobs puts your guard down for things that sound and feel right, but are wrong.
I also think that poor general education has also been exposed. People lack general science education and critical thinking skills. Just look at all the 'gotcha' posts of people giving scientists a hard time for changing their positions as new information is learned, when that is exactly what a scientist is supposed to do.
The other part drives these conspiracy theories is not just that they share a platform with legitimate sources, but also the algorithms. Someone clicks on a single story that is borderline conspiracy out of curiosity, and now they are served them at every turn. It's easy for a person to get lost and think that what they are being pushed is the entire world.
By the way, I think you're being downvoted because of this statement:
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
I've noticed there is a contingent on HN that do believe in some or all of these things.
What a lot of people are realizing now is that these democratized news sources are both sometimes a lot less credible than the corporate media, and sometimes a lot more credible than the corporate media.
When you can have people gather clips of text/video to show a corporate media entity contradicting itself, or hiding relevant facts when reporting on a situation, etc. in real-time, it becomes it becomes clear that it is not merely a bias, but in many cases an agenda which drives them (an agenda which may be political, or may merely be the pursuit of ratings and scarce advertising dollars).
So you don't think mainstream media lies too, all the time, like politicians? RussiaGate is still unproven and by all definitions, a conspiracy. What makes them any more allowed to shill but individuals cannot?
I'm not claiming mainstream media is perfect, by any means, but mainstream media is often beholden to broadcast standards, or at minimum they can't be so nonsensical as to turn away advertisers. There's plenty of room for influence in mainstream media, but at the very least the number of players is limited and the implicit biases widely known. We can all make a short list of who the left/center/right media brands in our respective countries are.
Doing that with the many thousands of Youtube channels or many millions of Facebook/Twitter accounts broadcasting alleged facts is difficult, if not impossible, especially when the cost of obtaining a new account is essentially zero.
^ Exhibit #1, typical progressive elitism, moderated with a carefully thought last word as to signal the rest of the group he is not actually a bad person.
Because people don't engage in critical thinking and many are predisposed to consider statements made by people in positions of high authority as fact.
Because, for better or worse, the sources of truth that normal people historically relied on for their barometer of what is true or not have been democratized by the internet.
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
Most of these ideas aren't new, but in decades past you might have heard about them from a conspiracy-therorist neighbor, a low profile website, or an alternative magazine with little reputation of its own.
Now, these ideas are spread on the exact same platforms as objectively truthful / scientifically sound media. Your Youtube conspiracy theory channel is right next to the BBC's videos. Your viral Facebook post could be from the New York Times, or it might be from a propaganda organization - or worse, an account that looks like a normal person but which was specifically created to spread misinformation that seems plausibly truthful.
Credibility is distributed and anyone can publish to a huge audience, which is wonderful sometimes, and othertimes deeply problematic, because the viewer often doesn't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction and can't trust the publisher at face value anymore.
Its uncharted territory. The cost to distribute is zero, and ideas spread far and wide - but that means that there are equally as many incredible sources on any given topic as credible ones, and telling the difference is hard, and sometimes not knowing the difference is dangerous. Dunning-Kruger writ large.
I agree.
The question is, if it's hard to figure out who you can trust, then who can you trust to decide what's fact and what's fiction?
I think trusting any one person or organization to decide is dangerous. Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.
I'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion.
Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.
Sure, but many things being discussed are beyond biases at this point. POTUS tweets and says completely false things every single day. This isn't downplaying things he disagrees with or spinning, it's flat out lying and/or denying they even exist.
There was a long thread here on HN about HCQ, and some were asking for proof that HCQ does not work. No, that is completely the opposite of how science, and drug research in particularly, works. Drugs are considered non-working until proven otherwise and never the other way around.
I'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion.
I understand what you're saying, but I shouldn't have to prove 1+1=2 every time I want to have a discussion. Let's take vaccines for example. They have been proven safe and effective many times over. They do not cause autism. In this case, what is the other side of the argument? On my side it's tons of peer reviewed research and on the other it's a few quacks with falsified/misinterpreted/unreplicable/bad science. What is there to actually argue? This is where I normally get frustrated because there are so many topics that can be vigorously argued in good faith, but if we can't agree to some basic 'this is how the scientific method works' then what's the point.
2 replies →
> I think trusting any one person or organization to decide is dangerous. Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.
Then don't do that. People shouldn't treat Twitter as the highest source if truth, but I don't think anyone does.
Just commenting to say that this was a well written reply
I appreciate it. I'm honestly surprised its initial reception has been so unpopular, but I suspect people think I'm somehow advocating for censorship... I'm not at all, and think that's obvious, but c'est la vie.
1 reply →
Conspiracy theory-type ideas are a threat, but I just want to add on that many partial truths or inaccuracies or falsehoods appealing to biases spread even more easily too. Depending on your side of the debate, you can make well-cited cases for or against minimum wage increasing unemployment, or immigration lowering wages. I haven't researched, but I bet mail-voting fraud too. To the point where the real truth isn't even clear, but people don't recognize the uncertainty.
I'm not sure if this ever hasn't been an issue, but it kinda comes to the heart of fact-checking. I think treating the kinds of falsehoods that get spread online as just obvious conspiracy-theories by nutjobs puts your guard down for things that sound and feel right, but are wrong.
Great post.
I also think that poor general education has also been exposed. People lack general science education and critical thinking skills. Just look at all the 'gotcha' posts of people giving scientists a hard time for changing their positions as new information is learned, when that is exactly what a scientist is supposed to do.
The other part drives these conspiracy theories is not just that they share a platform with legitimate sources, but also the algorithms. Someone clicks on a single story that is borderline conspiracy out of curiosity, and now they are served them at every turn. It's easy for a person to get lost and think that what they are being pushed is the entire world.
By the way, I think you're being downvoted because of this statement:
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
I've noticed there is a contingent on HN that do believe in some or all of these things.
I take issue with the "substantial number" claim.
Where are the studies that actually show it is a substantial number? Where's the peer-reviewed replication of those studies? How do those studies account for the "Lizardman constant" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...)?
Maybe I'm unique, but I'd guess many of the downvoters have similar complaints.
5 replies →
What a lot of people are realizing now is that these democratized news sources are both sometimes a lot less credible than the corporate media, and sometimes a lot more credible than the corporate media.
When you can have people gather clips of text/video to show a corporate media entity contradicting itself, or hiding relevant facts when reporting on a situation, etc. in real-time, it becomes it becomes clear that it is not merely a bias, but in many cases an agenda which drives them (an agenda which may be political, or may merely be the pursuit of ratings and scarce advertising dollars).
> can't trust the publisher at face value anymore
So you don't think mainstream media lies too, all the time, like politicians? RussiaGate is still unproven and by all definitions, a conspiracy. What makes them any more allowed to shill but individuals cannot?
I'm not claiming mainstream media is perfect, by any means, but mainstream media is often beholden to broadcast standards, or at minimum they can't be so nonsensical as to turn away advertisers. There's plenty of room for influence in mainstream media, but at the very least the number of players is limited and the implicit biases widely known. We can all make a short list of who the left/center/right media brands in our respective countries are.
Doing that with the many thousands of Youtube channels or many millions of Facebook/Twitter accounts broadcasting alleged facts is difficult, if not impossible, especially when the cost of obtaining a new account is essentially zero.
Because some people can't think for themselves, unfortunately.
Not false but this is not a justification for the ministry of truth. If anything it is an argument against it.
^ Exhibit #1, typical progressive elitism, moderated with a carefully thought last word as to signal the rest of the group he is not actually a bad person.
Unrelated, but did you hear that 5G causes coronavirus?
Because people don't engage in critical thinking and many are predisposed to consider statements made by people in positions of high authority as fact.