Hacker News Reader

Comment by tone | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure how anyone holds this opinion. Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? Who is the long-term great arbiter not only of the news but removal of non-news?

I'm also not sure why your worldview seems to be that given access to all opinions, the stupidest ones too, people will not and cannot learn to make informed judgements for themselves. You will see some stupidity but it's a very bleak and arrogant worldview to presume that people are incapable of making rational decisions given information and time.

View on HN

Arguments in bad faith drive out those in good faith.

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." -- Jean-Paul Sartre

Automated or crowdsourced moderation don't counter that; they reinforce it.

Look at Twitter and reddit, two sites where it's impossible to have a serious discussion because those who hold platform-approved opinions "like to play with discourse" and "seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."

"They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly" for fear of the moderators.

Skilled, professional, human moderation might counter that, but doesn't scale.

38% of the white evangelical Protestants who responded to Pew Research Center's survey[1] said that humans have always existed in their present form. But maybe you're right; maybe these people just need more time to become informed. It's only been 160 years since On the Origin of Species was published. We need to be more patient.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/

I know you're being facetious, but you actually prove the point well. I wonder what that % was 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago. I wonder which direction it's going?

But no I'm sure it would be far better if we banned such heretic thoughts and enforced our worldview.

It has been fairly stable. Creationism went from 38% in 1983 to 33% today (but with enough variability that it was also 38% as recently as 2017). "God made evolution happen" is another 40-44%, again fairly stable. Given the margin of errors in the polls, I'd say that they're pretty much the same, or a very slight decrease.

"It's just evolution" did change noticeably, but it's still only 22%. That's up from 9% in 1983.

So presumably the "i dunnos" are decreasing. But nothing seems to alter the misinformation very much.

That statistic is only meaningful if you also provide the same statistic for other demographic groups.

I loved the early Internet, and initially stoked when more and more people got onto it. I thought we'd enter an enlightened age of education and everyone could live up to their potential. Obviously, that's not what happened at all, and the current-day internet is a cess pool of people profiting off misinformation and encouraging these stupid bubbles where people are fed a feedback loop of bullshit.

I'm not sure how anyone holds anything but this opinion. Put me down as another vote for "unwanted shit-hole".

Watch https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224 and see how effectively social networks can hijack the human brain for nefarious (or just irresponsible) ends.

I could see some irony in this.

> Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting?

One could make the argument that the eras in which only those who had money or political power had a real voice resulted in a more stable society. Allow everyone to have a voice (full freedom of speech) but outlaw platforms that truly try to give a voice to everyone. If someone really wants to put out a message they can go to the street corner and shout whatever they like, no matter how bad it is, unrestricted.

A fair point. I'm not sure stability and freedoms generally always increase along the same line here. You can definitely increase stability while stifling freedoms. Not that they necessary directly correlate, but I imagine one way to cheaply and quickly gain some level of temporary stability is to stifle freedoms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com