Being kind to them is completely wasted effort.
Replying to them is also wasted effort as they won't be persuaded.
However leaving bullshit unchallenged might make trusting bystanders believe that this is actually the truth.
one side of this debate is very much NOT acting in good faith because they rely on the status quo being maintained to continue what they are doing
For every article you can find in support of one camp, one could find a counter piece from other credible sources as well (i.e. NYT vs The Economist and The Atlantic). For every NGO one can quote, someone else can quote from someone who've resigned, or once run/founded the very NGO that they're now criticizing (i.e. Danielle Haas, Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Bob Bernstein). You can even pitch the NGOs against one another, such as HRW and Amnesty against the ADL.
Ultimately, bad faith actors are indeed the root cause of the problem. However, I think the bigger problem here is the inability of these bad faith actors to recognize that belong to the very group they're criticizing. If facts were all that mattered, I would expect to see more people expressing more nuanced takes, or express more uncertainty. After all, it would be rather surprising for a consumer of news to hold their view with that much confidence when even the mainstream sources they are relying on is in dispute with one another.
Edit: sorry this took me so long. Here are my thoughts based on past experience:
It's not helpful to look at other accounts as "propagandists", "trolls", "bots" (or "shills", "astroturfers" or all the other similar terms internet commenters use), because there's no reliable way to distinguish between someone who is arguing for views they earnestly hold vs. someone who might be engaged in a propaganda campaign. The majority of commenters are sincerely arguing for what they sincerely think. A few may be doing something more sinister—but most people don't do such things, and there's no way to pick out the ones who are. Trying to pick them out will drive you crazy. Moreover, it doesn't matter in the end, because everyone is ultimately working with the same tool: arguing things in comments. Even the propagandists can't do more than that.
When people feel like someone else is a troll, propagandist, or bad faith actor, it's usually because that person's views are so distant from your own that it seems like nobody could possibly hold them in good faith. In reality, what's usually going on is that people on the internet underestimate how different each other's backgrounds are. It feels like you're talking to someone who is either insane or lying, but most likely you're talking to someone whose background is so different from yours that it's hard for the two of you to relate to each other. I wrote about this last year, if anyone is interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851.
I think the only way to handle this is by responding to bad arguments with better arguments and to false information with correct information—and to do this as neutrally as possible. Focus on clear information, and try not to let your feelings turn into aggression toward the other person. This is not easy, but it's in your interest to do it, because when commenters get aggressive with each other, fair-minded readers recoil.
For extra influence, if you can manage it: look for a way to connect with the other person, acknowledge some aspect of what they're saying, and implicitly make it clear that you're not trying to defeat or destroy them, but rather to understand. This is a big multiplier on how persuasive your comments become.
As for leaving bullshit unchallenged, I know it's hard to walk away from a thread that one feels is dominated by falsehood and distortion, but walking away is sometimes the most effective thing you can do. Here are a few thoughts which I try to remember in such situations:
(1) The internet is wrong about approximately everything. You can't change that, and you'll burn out trying.
(2) The one who walks away first usually comes across as stronger.
(3) Other people are not that different from you. When someone seems crazily wrong, they're most likely not bad or evil, but ignorant: they don't know what you know because they haven't experienced what you've experienced. For this reason, sharing your personal experience is probably the most effective thing you can do.
(4) When other people say things that produce strong feelings, try to let the feelings run their course in you before coming back to react. This is painful and hard, but it's in your interest.
I still suck at this in practice but I'm sure of it in theory!
(I'm working on a longer reply to you at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39158911, but I can't resist replying here too because I feel like I figured this one out after 15+ years of frustration.)
I don't think it is due to "bad faith actors" at all. I think it is better explained by (1) Israel/Palestine is a really hard problem, one where both sides have done wrong, and the "side" one is on often comes down with which wrong angers you more (which is more a question of subjective emotions than objective reasons), (2) the increasing tribalism and political polarisation of Western (and especially US) society, which gets overlaid on the Israel/Palestine conflict, however roughly (right-leaning people nowadays skew pro-Israel and left-leaning pro-Palestine, although there are an ever-shrinking number of exceptions to both generalisations)
The "bad faith actors" explanation is attractive precisely because it paints the problem as simpler and less intractable than it actually is
That's... not 100% honest, I guess, but at least it makes for easier to read and easier to handle conversations.
Conversely, arguing on HN has definitely helped me find the words to explain my own thinking to myself, so there's something in flogging a dead horse, sometimes.
The part about "institutional capture" is obviously right, but the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) NGOs exist exactly in order to support and promote IHL. And it's a standard that when an IHL NGO speaks out against Israel's actions, Israel's or its supporters' response is to say that the NGOs are Hamas. That's where the main "hit" to those NGOs' reputation has come from.
You can see this tactic also in the defense Israel mounted to South Africa's case at the ICJ, where they basically accused South Africa of being in cahoots with Hamas [1]. In the most extreme form of this "defense", everyone is Hamas. I was watching this interview with Alan Dershowitz [2] where he says Doctors Without Borders have been recruited by Hamas, Unicef and Unesco have become voices for Hamas, and even the climate movement and Greta Thunberg is a mouthpiece for Hamas:
https://youtu.be/04ZdRUFITnw?si=T3Y4dUekvv4kfVgr [3]
And you know who is not Hamas, and therefore has credibility, according to Alan Dershowitz in the same video? The US State Dept., the UK, "some" of the other European countries, and Germany, and an academic who's a friend of Alan Dershowitz (although he disagrees with him). So, everyone who agrees with Israel's positions has credibility, everyone who disagrees is Hamas.
That is not NGOs lacking credibility because they adopt, say, a left-learning position, it's Israel and Israel's supporters doing their damnedest best to claim that those organisations have no credibility because they speak out against violations of IHL, which is what they exist to do, when it's Israel that violates those.
Well, the same NGOs have no hesitation to condemn Hamas' atrocities and violations of IHL, or the violations of IHL of any other nation-state or non nation-state actor [4]. That's what they constantly do. To quote Andrew Stroehlein, of Human Rights Watch, "If you only care about war crimes when your enemies commit them, then you don't really care about war crimes." [5]
__________________
[1] Ask me if you need a reference to that, I don't have one at hand.
[2] The interviewer in that clip is also extremely partisan, no question about that. Also, it's a vile smear to identify Dershowitz as "Ex-Trump and Epstein lawyer", as if that's all he is.
[3] Full interview: https://youtu.be/O2UJgI0P-zk?si=fU8hWVszQyu7LJU_
[4] Numerous examples; ask for refs if you need.
[5] https://twitter.com/astroehlein/status/1716111114340049389
As I (think I) said in another comment, the strongest possible position one can adopt is the one supported by the facts. The Palestinian issue is so hard because there is an overwhelming amount of facts and only a few people are really in possession of all the facts. That's what skews the debate.
So e.g. when you go on the internet (I mean the-site-formerly-known-as-Twitter) you see a veritable fire hose of facts taken out of context. It's like people, humans, don't have a memory, they can only remember what's been posted on Twitter in the last week or so. The videos of Israel's atrocities circulate freely, but no videos of Hamas' atrocities circulate and even if they did, that was three months ago. So people kind of organically are shunted into one side, or the other, like sheep to slaughter, and there's no way to form an opinion that is really on the side of peace, huanitarian law, and human life.
So the solution is to not take sides and not try to form an opinion, even. Support peace, support IHL, support whoever is not talking about killing people, or taking over land, or waving flags, or saying who's right and who's wrong. In a war, to take sides is to perpetuate the war. To help people find peace we must stop taking sides.
Sooner or later, governments (and sometimes even other institutions) have to make binary choices – e.g. whether or not to vote for some UN resolution, whether or not to recognise the State of Palestine, etc. Of course, if one is just a private individual, not one of those leaders, one has the luxury of not choosing.
> for example, you can't target civilians, no matter who they are or what they or their homies have done, or who they support or don't support
You can't tell from footage of the aftermath of an airstrike whether it was illegitimate targeting of civilians or not. A big part of what it was depends on the intentions and knowledge of the military commander ordering the strike, which a video of its aftermath couldn't possibly convey.
> The Palestinian issue is so hard because there is an overwhelming amount of facts and only a few people are really in possession of all the facts
There is also a lot of interpretation of limited evidence – e.g. is event X an isolated incident or the norm? A video on social media can't tell you that. And even if a video is showing accurate footage of an incident, it usually can't convey the broader context of that incident.
1. xkcd 386: Someone is wrong on the Internet: <https://xkcd.com/386/>
2. Woozle's Epistemic Paradox: as epistemic systems become more prominently and widely used, they also become more attractive targets to those who would choose to manipulate them. See: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230606193813/https://old.reddi...>
3. More generally, all informational channels become battlegrounds, as noted by von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, numerous evolutionary biologists, and others. I've been slowly making my way through Jeremy Campbell's The Liar's Tale which is a big-picture look at this.
4. HN really isn't optimised around truth but conversation, and more specifically sustainable conversation, grounded in intellectual curiosity. There are numerous topics on which HN really is unable to have meaningful discussion (perennial ethnic conflicts are amongst these, as are other political hot topics), and its general tone-policing and penalisation of high-tension topics tends strongly to a status quo bias. (I've criticised HN for this often, despite an increasing awareness and appreciation of why those rules exist, see e.g., thread here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39023516>.)
5. Reporting blatant trolling and suspect motivations to HN mods does often work. Email to hn@ycombinator.com and link directly to the offending content and/or user, with a clear but succinct description of the problem.
6. Voting (up or down) and flagging also have their place. For sufficiently contentious threads this may well lead to something of a high-attrition zone, but often the really egregious crud does sink to the bottom. I find that higher-rated comments tend to be more anodyne than insightful, though occasionally truth does out.
7. I've found that rather than direct engagement, either supporting a counterthread, or writing your own well-reasoned and well-supported counter-thread, is often suprisingly effective. Remember that yours is always the last comment when you write it, though a thread may well have additional life. Sometimes my late efforts prove far more successful than I'd expected, and often I'll see that others have succeeded where I've either failed or failed to try. And again, supporting others' salient and productive engagement even where you don't have time or energy to contribute is highly underappreciated.
8. You don't have to attend every fight you're invited to.
9. Truth is not a popularity contest. Voting systems ultimately don't select for truth or importance, and expecting that from sites such as HN or Reddit will prove disappointing.
10. The meaningful audience is typically not who you're responding to directly, but the overwhelmingly silent majority reading rather than contributing to discussion.
What I'll frequently do where a counterparty has looped back to an earlier position is to simply link directly to my earlier response to that point, with the implicit statement "we've already covered this ground, I'm not going to repeat myself".
Walking away from such discussions is still challenging as there's always a temptation to respond. This is where employing HN's thread-collapse feature is useful. I'll typically do this at some point above my final response. The threads remain closed until the post is about two weeks old per earlier discussions with dang.