Hacker News Reader

Comment by ketzo | Hacker News Reader

I mean, in that article, he makes a pretty coherent point:

> Obama: If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis.

I don't think that's out of place in a conversation about today's internet/media landscape. He's not saying "the internet is bad," or even "social media is bad"; he's saying that the internet clearly has the potential to amplify disinformation to a point that becomes harmful, something I think anyone would be hard-pressed to disagree with.

View on HN

Mainstream press also has the ability to publish and amplify disinformation, and they do[0]. The internet is a hugely important tool that can be used to shed light on actual power structures and their atrocities. This good of exposing evil and corruption far outweighs the potentially bad outcome of a minority of individuals believing incorrect information.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mP2jN6bJI

If we don't have the capacity to distinguish what's true from what's false, then nothing works. Putting the government (or any other third party) in charge of censorship for the sake of filtering out what's false just moves the decision elsewhere - but it's still made by some people somewhere. Whether those people are determined directly or indirectly through some democratic process, or self-appointed, the same problem applies recursively.

Disinformation assumes the average person is stupid though. Whose to say the inherent undisputable (because you can't prove or deny) conspiracy theory someone believes is true? Why is the onus on media companies to police how we want to live our lives and believe in whatever nonsense we want to? I play videogames and watch tv shows, because it inspires me to think a particular way outside of the norm, should it be banned? This is literally the same argument about banning and burning books.

You dont have to be stupid to fall for disinformation, you just have to want to believe a lie.

A lot of people are ok with lies if they confirm what they already believe.

Yes but those types of people are not looking for truth, they're looking for information that supports their bias. So if you tell them to shut up and take it, now they internally fabricate a conspiracy theory. What's worse is you have no idea what they're thinking or planning now.

The only people who care about "truth" in capitalism are shareholders and affluent individuals. It binds them to the culture and when a bunch of lowlifes and poorer people tell them "fuck off" essentially, they get pissy and upset that the people don't like the status quo.

> The only people who care about "truth" in capitalism are shareholders and affluent individuals.

These are the people that care about stability, in order to enjoy their wealth. A country that cannot agree with one another on objective reality isn't one that can be governed, and is destined to fall.

Which might be why so many of the "disinformation" fighters come from the establishment, and so many proprietors of distortions and lies are those with grudges (Greenwald, Bannon, etc.) or nothing to lose (QAnon/MAGA types).

It comes down to a difference between people that benefit from a stable status quo, and those (for whatever reason) that want to tear it down.

What an incredibly paternalistic and disappointing quote from Obama. “If we don’t have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from false”.

So clearly we need the gov’t to step in help the rabble who are clearly unable to figure out the “truth” on their own.

Does he realize this is the exact argument authoritarian gov’ts give for censorship? We need to censor to avoid “social disharmony” or stop those “fomenting discord”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com