> "“Given the rapid state of change, we believe it is best to enable communities to engage in debate and dissent, and for us to link to the CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) wherever appropriate.” "" <
This isnt debate or dissent, this is propaganda, endangering lives and our economy. And those that want to believe garbage they are being fed, are not going to care about the CDC especially when half the articles are conspiracy theories about the CDC.
Seems like the right move to me. We’ve already seen that things labeled “misinformation” can turn into a plausible theory overnight, e.g. the lab leak theory.
It’s disappointing to see so many people demanding that corporations act as the arbiters of truth.
I've looked through the sub they're complaining about... I don't see anything in there that's actually false. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but it's mostly just people saying "I don't believe everything I hear". Which is probably a Good Thing.
I've seen movies where the bad guy says something like that just to get the good guy to turn around long enough for him to pull out a gun and shoot him.
It doesn't matter whether it's the current or former coverage that was misinformation, what matters is we will never find out the truth if we ban the side currently deemed "misinformation" from making its case.
What has been interesting with Covid is what would be considered “disinformation” has changed.
At the beginning, saying you should wear a mask was “disinformation”. Then saying that the virus could have leaked from the Wuhan lab was “disinformation”. Then saying you might need a booster vaccine was also “disinformation”.
I don't care whose side you're on - compared to ten years ago, the front page of Reddit has absolutely become infiltrated with deliberately crafted narratives clearly intended to push certain agendas.
This call to action by "volunteer moderators" is ironic in that sense, because there are likely even bigger more impactful systematic campaigns of disinformation going on - see this recent discussion from yesterday for some great insight into why and how these campaigns may be orchestrated [1].
There's a conspiracy theory that they're not actually volunteers - or rather, that they're paid by outside interests to steer the conversation the way certain outside interests want it steered. I'm not necessarily convinced, but it would explain a bit.
There's another conspiracy theory about the most influential powermod for over a decade, /u/maxwellhill. The account was a mod of some of the largest subreddits out there, and regularly made posts that hit the front page. The account went completely silent on June 30, 2020, just two days before the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell.
You mean like how housing cost discussions here are always looking to blame zoning laws, to name one example? Pretty sure at this point that even HN has a heady dose of controlled opposition.
Hm, interesting - I hadn’t ever seen that on here, although zoning laws is the only explanation I can think of. Why do you think housing costs are so high? It can’t be a conspiracy - or if so, who are the conspirators?
"There are those who deny that the pandemic even exists, there are those who think that wearing a mask will literally suffocate you, there are those who think it's no worse than a regular flu virus, that it's a bioweapon, and everything in between."
And everything in between? How do I possibly know what idea is "approved" and what is off-limits? There was a time when saying you didn't need to disinfect surfaces every hour was fringe. Lab leak was WILDLY fringe and now it's at least a viable topic. These things evolve because we don't allow them to become dogma, but instead present evidence. Take mask efficacy. It's a hot debate right now but they link to a couple of papers and act as if that means it's settled science. What if I have a couple of peer-reviewed articles saying otherwise? How do I present that without being banned in this world?
"Our business model is making money off shitposts. And our advertisers aren't demanding we shut down this hot garbage yet, so go pound sand until they do."
Meanwhile, moderators at "rubber ducks floating in sinks enthusiasts" and "small cats with big katanas enthusiasts" and ... etc. have declared themselves guardian of some endangered truth.
Having spent millennia trying to get better discrimination, including intellectual, there seems to be now answers where earlier we had doubts: everything is easy, truth is clear, and the qualifications required to see it with solid grounds are apparently negligible. Big /S
And especially, what have rubber ducks cats and katanas have to do with medicine and virology etc.
Socrates should be back to show an unexpectedly large part of humanity "Are you really sure?". Critical thinking should come with basic education.
--
Edit: it seems as if a new club like "Private citizens with responsibilities [billboards] but different responsibilities [even cats] for the defence of responsible truth" has formed - this is the idea.
And I find it appalling that there seems to be an assumption with that «responsible truth»: the idea, even explicit in some cases, that doubt is dangerous for society. (And what is the cost of the opposite?) With the sibling idea that people must be protected, and they must be protected from exposure to complexity, and ultimately sheltered because incapable of rational thinking (real position expressed almost literally by involved parties). (They are supposed to be scholarized, exclamation mark.)
I think we have a problem now that certain large media organizations and government are directing the narrative. They put out what they want in the media, they control what's there. These large parties are dictating what's misinformation, and the big problem is that large amounts of people are just accepting it. That then feeds the "hive mind" where anyone who does not share that "popular" opinion/viewpoint are ostracized. To make matters worse, in most cases now it's black and white - either you're for or against. You can't be undecided - that automatically puts you on the "against" side of things. As well, for the most part the likelihood of civil discussion with those on the side of the sponsored viewpoint is just not going to happen.
"Whoever is not with me is against me" is a very common position of many very basic political agents. The phenomenon is not new. The relevant part is that it is an indicator of the quality of the agents.
Yes, the quality of the agents has changed for sure. However it seems the population now are easier to polarize, perhaps because media is so prevalent in our lives. There have always been groups that went to the extreme with the "for or against" attitude, it seems now that those groups are far larger.
And again, if you're not interested or undecided, then you're the enemy, whereas in the past you would have just been ignored.
That is a very good point, and the reality is even worse on platforms that tailor the information to the individual with no high level overview or possibility to inspect/regulate who sees what.
Humans are highly malleable. Not being able to know how private companies create bubbles of information and feed certain ideologies is a recipe for disaster.
Giving everyone a megaphone is dangerous. Sane people don't usually pick up megaphones either. Further detaching sane people from the discourse leaves an echo chamber of dangerous thoughts.
The question is whether one CEO can resist an absolute mob of people who don't have any respect for liberal values about tolerating dissent and freedom of opinion. There are so many of them, on Internet comment sections at least.
The problem is a virus doesn't care about liberal values. It seems a little bit crazy to drag the pandemic onto some symbolic level of freedom of speech when you are facing a real, physical threat from a biological agent that has killed hundreds of thousands and continues to rampage.
Its like you're on the titanic, the ship is sinking, you're getting people into the lifeboats, and someone starts deflating the boats and your response is. Well clearly we have to listen to this man, because of the importance of dissent and liberal values!
You really have to wonder what happens to a country that is so caught up in its liberal ideology it prefers narrative to actually handling biological, immanent crises.
My guess is those behind spreading the disinformation cater to or are a part of reddits core, influential and very vocal demographic. Who would want to rock that boat with a billion dollar valuation. User Engagement over everything else wins.
30 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 88.8 ms ] threadThis isnt debate or dissent, this is propaganda, endangering lives and our economy. And those that want to believe garbage they are being fed, are not going to care about the CDC especially when half the articles are conspiracy theories about the CDC.
A Totally irresponsible and truly garbage CEO.
It’s disappointing to see so many people demanding that corporations act as the arbiters of truth.
"Meh, I don't believe everything I hear."
[0] https://fair.org/home/corporate-media-politicize-who-investi...
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
At the beginning, saying you should wear a mask was “disinformation”. Then saying that the virus could have leaked from the Wuhan lab was “disinformation”. Then saying you might need a booster vaccine was also “disinformation”.
This call to action by "volunteer moderators" is ironic in that sense, because there are likely even bigger more impactful systematic campaigns of disinformation going on - see this recent discussion from yesterday for some great insight into why and how these campaigns may be orchestrated [1].
[1] Almost all of the top subreddits are moderated by the same people (291 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28312261
There's a conspiracy theory that they're not actually volunteers - or rather, that they're paid by outside interests to steer the conversation the way certain outside interests want it steered. I'm not necessarily convinced, but it would explain a bit.
Adding to the coincidences (account name match, date ghosted match), Ghislaine attended the Conde Naste christmas party, as reported by then-Reddit CEO Pao (https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ex-reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-knew-g...).
Quite interesting. Never any explanation from anyone about why this most influential mod just disappeared.
"There are those who deny that the pandemic even exists, there are those who think that wearing a mask will literally suffocate you, there are those who think it's no worse than a regular flu virus, that it's a bioweapon, and everything in between."
And everything in between? How do I possibly know what idea is "approved" and what is off-limits? There was a time when saying you didn't need to disinfect surfaces every hour was fringe. Lab leak was WILDLY fringe and now it's at least a viable topic. These things evolve because we don't allow them to become dogma, but instead present evidence. Take mask efficacy. It's a hot debate right now but they link to a couple of papers and act as if that means it's settled science. What if I have a couple of peer-reviewed articles saying otherwise? How do I present that without being banned in this world?
At this point, you'd probably need the backing of a government of a large or influential body.
"Our business model is making money off shitposts. And our advertisers aren't demanding we shut down this hot garbage yet, so go pound sand until they do."
Having spent millennia trying to get better discrimination, including intellectual, there seems to be now answers where earlier we had doubts: everything is easy, truth is clear, and the qualifications required to see it with solid grounds are apparently negligible. Big /S
And especially, what have rubber ducks cats and katanas have to do with medicine and virology etc.
Socrates should be back to show an unexpectedly large part of humanity "Are you really sure?". Critical thinking should come with basic education.
--
Edit: it seems as if a new club like "Private citizens with responsibilities [billboards] but different responsibilities [even cats] for the defence of responsible truth" has formed - this is the idea.
And I find it appalling that there seems to be an assumption with that «responsible truth»: the idea, even explicit in some cases, that doubt is dangerous for society. (And what is the cost of the opposite?) With the sibling idea that people must be protected, and they must be protected from exposure to complexity, and ultimately sheltered because incapable of rational thinking (real position expressed almost literally by involved parties). (They are supposed to be scholarized, exclamation mark.)
And again, if you're not interested or undecided, then you're the enemy, whereas in the past you would have just been ignored.
Humans are highly malleable. Not being able to know how private companies create bubbles of information and feed certain ideologies is a recipe for disaster.
Giving everyone a megaphone is dangerous. Sane people don't usually pick up megaphones either. Further detaching sane people from the discourse leaves an echo chamber of dangerous thoughts.
Its like you're on the titanic, the ship is sinking, you're getting people into the lifeboats, and someone starts deflating the boats and your response is. Well clearly we have to listen to this man, because of the importance of dissent and liberal values!
You really have to wonder what happens to a country that is so caught up in its liberal ideology it prefers narrative to actually handling biological, immanent crises.