←back to thread

757 points headalgorithm | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yowayb ◴[] No.42949712[source]
Those of us in the west tend to forget that much of what we see is a form of propaganda, whether by governments or businesses, or even a large number of people. When you keep this in mind, everything you see becomes an opinion and your mind can comfortably (or at least not emotionally/hurriedly) form your own opinion over time.
replies(9): >>42949944 #>>42949956 #>>42950292 #>>42953321 #>>42954164 #>>42954171 #>>42954445 #>>42955648 #>>42956301 #
lawn ◴[] No.42953321[source]
The danger with this way of thinking is that it's easy to start weighing all information equally, while that's very far from the reality.
replies(1): >>42953735 #
lordfrito ◴[] No.42953735[source]
If everything I read online [that I don't pay for] is a form of propaganda, then the only choice I have is to either: 1) weight all information equally 2) bias information based on [personal beliefs XYZ]

I'm trying hard to do #1, mainly because #2 is confirmation bias (and reinforces it).

What other options are there?

replies(2): >>42954076 #>>42959240 #
lawn ◴[] No.42954076[source]
You could for instance consider actual facts? Because 100% of what you read online is in fact not propaganda.

Then you might find that some sources are filled with lies and others contain a lot more facts.

Then you'd naturally weight facts from the more trustworthy source higher.

The next step is a "web of trust" where a new source will be more trustworthy if it's linked to by other trustworthy sources.

So in the end you'd rank information from Russia Today (one of Russia's main propaganda channels) as very low, a comment from a random redditor low, and a comment on physics by a renowned physicist as very high trustworthiness.

replies(1): >>42954465 #
1. lordfrito ◴[] No.42954465[source]
> Because 100% of what you read online is in fact not propaganda.

This isn't even close to true. Facts are facts, and stories are propaganda. What we call "news" is largely just "stories" (opinion/editorials) about facts -- the story is the propaganda - the story weaves the facts together in a narrative, the narrative tells us how to feel and think. Stories cost $$$, and those promoting them are absolutely promoting some stories over others. They have a message to send -- that message is propaganda.

You mention a comment from a "random redditor" is low value -- I'm suggesting that nearly every "major" narrative spun on Reddit has been largely placed there by forces with deep pockets and axes to grind, and the true believers and other useful idiots that follow blindly. It's all astroturfing, and Reddit is an absolute garbage dump of discussion. Anyone that goes there thinking they're getting an accurate picture of the world around them is seriously deluded. I'm convinced those that run Reddit do this by design. We know who runs Twitter, and Facebook. No one talks about who is running Reddit.

A "comment on physics by a renowned physicist" is still just a comment -- there are facts in physics, and theories. Even renowned physicists can be wrong when it comes to the theories they back. And honestly [coming back to the point of the article] that's not what's causing people to feel outrage -- they're not doom scrolling physics forums outraged about dark matter or a theory of everything -- they're doom scrolling an endless stream of political/cultural propaganda designed to outrage them and keep them addicted.

The world isn't nearly as black and white as the internet would have you believe it is.

Point me to a source of political/cultural news that you believe is full of fact and not just another site full of opinions pieces and editorializing around the facts.