Hacker News Reader

Comment by tablespoon | Hacker News Reader

> What sort of manipulative amplification/suppression, specifically? Maybe a skinner box outrage machine that turns us into hostile tribes sniping over cultural crap while completely unable to govern ourselves as they surpass us?

Amplifying pre-existing fault lines to encourage general weakness is certainly one that's been well explored. Another might be amplifying political or ideological that serve the foreign power's goals (e.g. general pacifism when that power is planning some kind of aggression or military build up, or electioneering messages for a candidate with a more favorable trade policy to that power).

No one could deliver particular results with certainty using any of these methods, but they could definitely put their finger on the scales.

View on HN

Sorry I was describing our current social networks. Impossible to gauge how thick to lay it on in text.

> Sorry I was describing our current social networks. Impossible to gauge how thick to lay it on in text.

I know you were. The issue here isn't that this kind of manipulation is totally unheard of, it's that it could be done far, far more effectively and stealthily with the control of the platform.

Eh let's take responsibility for our own culture before blaming on the insidious machinations of the great hidden Other.

> Eh let's take responsibility for our own culture before blaming on the insidious machinations of the great hidden Other.

What now? Who's blaming anything "on the insidious machinations of the great hidden Other"?

"Effective and stealthy manipulation" were your words I believe. Short hop from there for someone else to go further.

We just watched people spend 3-4 years claiming that 50 Russian internet trolls were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign. The "smart people"! At some point you have to add up the mass values and ask if this adds up, or if we're just making excuses for ourselves.

> "Effective and stealthy manipulation" were your words I believe. Short hop from there for someone else to go further.

A hop you took, not me.

> We just watched people spend 3-4 years claiming that 50 Russian internet trolls were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign.

Fifty Russian internet trolls (likely more), were working to put their finger on the scale, but it's an exaggeration to say definitively that they "were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign." Maybe they tipped the scale, but maybe they didn't. There's no way anyone will ever answer that question.

It's like hacking. Has a foreign nation hacked the US power grid to cause widespread blackouts? No. Does that mean foreign hacking of US utility companies is not something for Americans to be concerned about? No. Does that mean the US shouldn't harden its power grid against the threat? Also no.

It's a scale with a billion dollars on either end, and we were asked to believe a small office of internet trolls from Russia tipped it. BS detector engaged.

If we're so fragile that some marginal stuff can steer our culture, then we deserve it.

> It's a scale with a billion dollars on either end, and we were asked to believe a small office of internet trolls from Russia tipped it. BS detector engaged.

No, we were not asked to believe that, at least not by anyone worth listening to.

You're missing the point. The attempt to put a finger on the scale is threat that warrants a response. It doesn't matter if the scale was tipped or not. It's like if someone shoots at you and misses. Would you have no problem with that? Should you proceed like nothing happened?

Similarly, the capability to make an attempt is also a threat. It's like if someone hands you a time bomb, are you going to carry it around and act like it's not dangerous, just because it hasn't gone off yet?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com