Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

"The contextualization engine compares the content being shared with that from authoritative sources and provides articles or other media results that are sufficiently related."

How are these authoritative sources chosen? This sounds like it would be rife for manipulation. Plus, just relying on an appeal to authority as the validation of the information will not weed out mistakes or errors in the content.

What are the standards for these other media results it will provide? News articles, blogs, studies, etc. Some might be better than others depending on the topic. The news and journalists are supposed to be the old school contextual engine. How do we see an automated version being any better quality?

View on HN

Exactly. The fundamental problem with the phrase "misinformation" is that what is or isn't "misinformation" is subjective. Truth and reality aren't subjective, but people's beliefs about the nature of them are, very much so. It's impossible to solve the problem by asking "The Experts" to adjudicate what is and isn't true, because The Experts have become too mired in corruption, greed, political intimidation and so on. They no longer represent anything even close to an impartial party, and thus are not useful tools for discerning reality anymore, at least in the traditional way of asking a question, getting an answer and accepting it.

> Truth and reality aren't subjective, but people's beliefs about the nature of them are, very much so. It's impossible to solve the problem by asking "The Experts" to adjudicate what is and isn't true, because The Experts have become too mired in corruption, greed, political intimidation and so on.

I remember well into March 2020 that The Experts were telling us to go about our business as usual, and censoring people who tried raising the alarm about COVID.

don't ever doubt the brain trusts.

Like anything, information is on a spectrum, with information objectively true or false at either end, and then a range in the middle that is muddied. We could probably do something to correct the super obvious falsehoods at the extreme end of the spectrum.

However, I don’t think this will help as much as we might like. While it is easy to focus on the obvious falsehoods that some people believe, a lot of what divides us is not things that are objective facts, with one side believing truth and the other fiction.

A lot of our fundamental disagreements are about subjective values, and we distract ourselves by thinking the issue is actually about facts. If one person believes that we have a responsibility to help people who are struggling, and another person thinks that everyone is on their own and needs to deal with their own problems, we can’t reconcile that by finding out the ‘objective truth’. Core values aren’t objective facts, but they are what matter the most.

"A lot of our fundamental disagreements are about subjective values, and we distract ourselves by thinking the issue is actually about facts."

This

> A lot of our fundamental disagreements are about subjective values, and we distract ourselves by thinking the issue is actually about facts.

Originally yes, and if we could all agree on that separation we would probably have an easier time. But subjective values have definitely clouded a whole lot of peoples acceptance of facts in the objective part of the spectrum. That's the real issue.

I really enjoy political discussions on how someone else thinks we should optimize for individual freedom or collective utility or what is the most effective way to reach a goal based on some values and premise.

I haven't encountered such a discussion in years. Most things boil down to entirely disprovable bs people encounter on whatever facebook (or otherwise) rabbit hole they've decided to live in.

I believe that is because we are essentially taught not to think today. Most of the stuff in school is about deferring to experts on matters of fact. There is very little about creating one's own view point, or even exploring a varieties of existing ones beyond the facts on the surface. I don't see philosophy of argument or formal logic being taught in primary or secondary schools. In my experience, when many teachers encounter a novel idea or viewpoint related to personally important topics, they simply tell the person they are wrong due to the cognitive dissonance of admitting they are wrong or don't know.

There is no group "The Experts". This is just a conspiratorial populism in disguise.

Ah yes, The People, really know. They aren't corrupt.

Oh wait! It's The People sharing, liking, and subscribing to batshit. The People are corrupt, greedy, stupid.

There is no utopian solution; the worst is to leave The People to their own devices.

It already is. Watch the Twitter 'trending' pane over time, and you'll notice that they add context in exactly one worldview direction, incurring massive editorialized anchor bias.

who fact checks the fact checkers, the fact checking checkerboard of course!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com