[HN Gopher] Rechanneling Beliefs: How information flows hinder o...
___________________________________________________________________
Rechanneling Beliefs: How information flows hinder or help
democracy [pdf]
Author : curmudgeon22
Score : 25 points
Date : 2021-06-09 19:39 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (snfagora.jhu.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (snfagora.jhu.edu)
| kokanator wrote:
| This document is about silencing people who don't agree with the
| 'norm' which should be handled by independent parties (
| 'gatekeepers' ) with oversight from the government. ( yes I read
| the entire document ).
|
| This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans,
| conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem.
|
| """Our prescriptions are not intended to weaken the Republican
| Party, but instead to redirect its energies so that its
| extremists don't undermine a basic shared understanding of
| democracy."""
|
| Spin it how you want, it is censorship.
| epgui wrote:
| Can you explain to me like I'm 5 how the act of publishing an
| academic whitepaper is equivalent to censorship?
| wwweston wrote:
| > his document is about silencing people who don't agree with
| the 'norm'
|
| Apparently you're implying "The norm" is always nothing more
| than just another possible range of opinions, or worse, that
| it's some arbitrary standard that outsiders are forcing upon
| you.
|
| Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a
| norm may represent a well-established _consensus_ should be
| readily apparent. As should the idea that there is such a thing
| as "noise" that obscures true signal and it's desirably
| sometimes to filter noise out of well-functioning systems.
|
| Is that tricky when it comes to the marketplace of ideas? Sure.
| Does that mean _every_ effort to come to grips with the problem
| is censorship? Nope.
|
| > This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans,
| conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem.
|
| Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise
| but on outright disinformation most right now along the
| political spectrum. It doesn't have to be that way -- there are
| conservatives who are capable of advocacy on honest merits --
| but it is that way right now.
| kokanator wrote:
| > Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a
| norm may represent a well-established consensus should be
| readily apparent.
|
| So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the
| last election for instance the population was split nearly
| down the middle on the 'well-established consensus'.
|
| > Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on
| noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the
| political spectrum.
|
| This seems bit naive. The statement at the beginning of the
| document is simply a vail the author is using in order to
| proceed with a reprogramming plan for republicans and
| conservatives.
|
| "How do you know a politician is lying, [their] mouth is
| moving."
|
| We just had a full year of misinformation from all
| directions. To single one group out is disingenuous at best.
| ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ).
|
| The nation is split ideologically. How do you create a way to
| have conversations which lead to understanding? That is the
| real question that needs to be asked.
| motohagiography wrote:
| This horse seems to have left the barn. A significant portion of
| politically engaged people in the US and other countries will
| never believe electronic voting is legtimate again. Interesting
| that Bruce Schneier is a co-author, and the paper seems timed to
| be positioned for a reckoning about the integrity of those
| systems, and perhaps a justification of them because an election
| with physical integrity could have had problematic results.
| WalterGR wrote:
| How is it both a reckoning and at the same time a justification
| of conspiracy theories?
| foolinaround wrote:
| how about the authors of this paper exposing their own political
| biases, how they voted etc? Similar to how financial analysts who
| write on a stock have a disclaimer about their relationship with
| the stock?
| epgui wrote:
| What impact would that have on the merits of the text?
| kokanator wrote:
| It would help to inform the "intent" of the text.
| epgui wrote:
| The intent of the text is pretty clearly laid out in the
| first page of the text, is it not?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| In the event your reading is also frustrated by a non-dismissable
| overlay _and_ non-clickable download links, the webpage is merely
| a brief introduction to a 12 page PDF article here:
|
| https://snfagora.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rechanne...
| dang wrote:
| Ok, I've changed the URL to that from
| https://snfagora.jhu.edu/publication/rechanneling-beliefs/.
| Thanks!
| caramelcream wrote:
| Summary of the article: Republicans bad, Democrats good.
|
| It's a shame that partisanship makes it impossible to notice
| certain issues. The article completely ignores the erosion of
| journalistic standards, censorship on social media, "woke"
| takeover of academia and demonization of white males.
|
| It's not a surprise that the situation keeps getting worse.
| spiritplumber wrote:
| You are helping how?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-09 23:01 UTC)