Most active commenters
  • meowface(7)
  • pstuart(5)

←back to thread

Tim Bray on Grokipedia

(www.tbray.org)
175 points Bogdanp | 24 comments | | HN request time: 0.721s | source | bottom
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.45777117[source]
Why give it oxygen?
replies(6): >>45777142 #>>45777160 #>>45777311 #>>45777327 #>>45777329 #>>45777411 #
meowface ◴[] No.45777160[source]
To play devil's advocate: Grok has historically actually been one of the biggest debunkers of right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories on Twitter, contrary to popular conception. Elon keeps trying to tweak its system prompt to make it less effective at that, but Grokipedia was worth an initial look from me out of curiosity. It took me 10 seconds to realize it was ideologically-motivated garbage and significantly more right-biased than Wikipedia is left-biased.

(Unfortunately, Reply-Grok may have been successfully partially lobotomized for the long term, now. At the time of writing, if you ask grok.com about the 2020 election it says Biden won and Trump's fraud claims are not substantiated and have no merit. If you @grok in a tweet it now says Trump's claims of fraud have significant merit, when previously it did not. Over the past few days I've seen it place way too much charity in right-wing framings in other instances, as well.)

replies(4): >>45777225 #>>45777240 #>>45777294 #>>45777386 #
1. pstuart ◴[] No.45777225[source]
The problem of debunking right-wing misinformation is that it doesn't seem to matter. The consumers of that misinformation want it and those of us who think it's bad for society already know that its garbage.

It feels like we've reached Peak Stupidity but it's clear it can (and likely will) get much worse with AI videos.

replies(6): >>45777259 #>>45777318 #>>45777362 #>>45777581 #>>45778665 #>>45784645 #
2. J_McQuade ◴[] No.45777315[source]
Name one.
replies(4): >>45777423 #>>45777447 #>>45777483 #>>45779423 #
3. bawolff ◴[] No.45777318[source]
I think there is a problem sometimes that "debunkers" are often more interested in scoring points with secondary audiences (i.e. people who already agree with them) than actually convincing the people who believe the misinformation.

Most people who believe bullshit were convinced by something. It might not have been fully rational but there is usually a kernel of something there that triggered that belief. They also probably have heard at least the surface level version of the oppising argument at some point before. Too many debunkers just reiterate the surface argument without engaging with whatever is convincing their opponent. Then when it doesn't land they complain their opponent is brainwashed. Which sometimes might even be true, but sometimes their argument just misses the point of why their opponent believes what they do.

replies(3): >>45777407 #>>45777444 #>>45777613 #
4. Freedom2 ◴[] No.45777362[source]
One of the rallying cries of the right is "facts don't care about your feelings", but it's interesting how the facts either get distorted or ignored.
replies(1): >>45777492 #
5. the_gastropod ◴[] No.45777367[source]
Please. What common conspiracy theories that have actual political impact have water carried by left-wing politicians?

Here's a short list of RW conspiracy theories with real life political consequences:

- Antivax conspiracies

- Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States ("birther" conspiracy)

- Biden / Ukraine conspiracy theory

- The litany of Covid-19 conspiracy theories

- The "deep state" conspiracy theory

- Sarah Palin's "death panels" conspiracy theory

- Sandy Hook was fake

- 2020 Election Fraud

- Trump / Ukraine conspiracy theory

- QAnon

replies(2): >>45777501 #>>45777702 #
6. pstuart ◴[] No.45777407[source]
"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

Fox (and others like it) offer 24/7 propaganda based on fear and anger, repeating lies ad nauseam. It's highly effective -- I've seen the results first-had.

Making ad hominem attacks against "debunkers" doesn't make your case.

And again, trying to change people's minds by telling them what they believe is wrong is a fools errand (99.99% of the time). But it still needs to happen as that misinformation should not go unchallenged.

replies(1): >>45777662 #
7. pstuart ◴[] No.45777423{3}[source]
I think their goto is "Russiagate" but that's because the refuse to acknowledge the facts that Mueller did have evidence but assumed that Congress would act upon it.
replies(1): >>45777750 #
8. ◴[] No.45777444[source]
9. netsharc ◴[] No.45777447{3}[source]
I'm not the grandfather commenter, I'm very much a leftist, but left, right, there's too many whose emotions or tribalism override their logic and make them deny what they see/come up with dumbass theories.

For a left example, there are people who theorize that the guy who missed putting a bullet in Trump's brain must've been a false flag operator. Although it must be mentioned that "leftie" conspiracy theories are mostly just on social media, while "right" ones end up being broadcast by congresspeople and senators, probably because they know their side will take them at face value..

10. virissimo ◴[] No.45777483{3}[source]
Some left-coded popular conspiracies:

1. The Iraq war was a plot to steal oil reserves

2. World Economic Forum / IMF intentionally impoverish nations

3. Police across America are systematically hunting and executing Black men (thousands per year), but are protected by racist institutions

4. Trump assassination attempts were false flag operations

5. Big Pharma deliberately hides natural cures for cancer to protect corporate profits

replies(2): >>45777522 #>>45787896 #
11. netsharc ◴[] No.45777492[source]
"Charlie Kirk..."

"Waaahhh! How fucking dare you!"

Kimmel made fun of Trump talking about his ballroom when being asked about Kirk, and the right got offended and mad. Although it's not about feelings, it's more about exploiting a tragedy to advance their goals (in this case getting a critic like Kimmel off the air).

12. johncolanduoni ◴[] No.45777501{3}[source]
I won’t go to bat for anything near a full equivocation in contemporary politics, but it’s worth remembering antivax was heavily left-coded prior to Covid. I don’t think approximately anyone has actually good epistemology - just biases that fluctuate in how much they affect the real world. Left wing academics and outlets carrying water for people like Pol Pot in the late 20th century because they liked the idea of communism was a particularly bad one.
replies(1): >>45777801 #
13. ◴[] No.45777522{4}[source]
14. meowface ◴[] No.45777581[source]
On one hand, yes, you're completely right.* On the other hand, there is an obligation for something or someone to do the job of pointing out the info is wrong, and how and why. Even if it makes most of them believe it even more strongly afterwards, it's still worse for it to go constantly unchallenged and for believers to never even come across the opposition.

*(The same is true of left-wing conspiracy theories. It's silly to pretend that right-wing conspiracy theorists aren't far more common and don't believe in, on average, far more delusional and obviously false conspiracy theories than left-wingers do, but it's important not to forget they exist. I have dealt with some. They're arguably worse in some ways since they tend to be more intelligent, and so are more able to come up with more plausible rationalizations to contort their minds into pretzels.)

15. meowface ◴[] No.45777613[source]
This is very, very true. The best debunkers avoid being hostile and make the other side feel like they're being heard and that their feelings and fears are being validated. And they do it in a way that feels honest and not condescending and patronizing (like talking to a child). They make frequent (sincere) concessions and hedges and find as much common ground as they can.

Although he's more populist-left and I'm more establishment-liberal (and so I might find him a bit overly conciliatory with certain conspiracy theorists), Andrew Callaghan of Channel 5/All Gas No Brakes demonstrates a good example of this in the first few minutes of this video: https://youtu.be/QU6S3Cbpk-k?t=38

replies(1): >>45778252 #
16. meowface ◴[] No.45777662{3}[source]
>And again, trying to change people's minds by telling them what they believe is wrong is a fools errand (99.99% of the time). But it still needs to happen as that misinformation should not go unchallenged.

It's a trite point and I ended up repeating it before seeing your post but this really is very true even if it may not seem like it. On one hand the practice is basically futile. But someone absolutely needs to do it. People need to do it. The ecosystem can't only ever contain the false narratives, because that leads to an even worse situation. "Here's why Holocaust denialism is incorrect and why the 271k number is wrong" is essentially pointless, per Sartre, but it's better for neo-Nazis to be exposed to that rather than "one should never even humor Holocaust denialists".

17. meowface ◴[] No.45777702{3}[source]
By left-wing politicians, basically none (while right-wing conspiracy theories are now promoted by tons of right-wing politicians). Among non-politicians: while right-wingers are far more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and the nature of the conspiracy theories they believe are far less tethered to reality on average, conspiracism is still a serious issue on the left.

It's like 50x less of an issue but I deal with so many left-wing conspiracies on a daily basis. I think the right is much worse than the left (on this topic and in general) but quite a lot of the left, or at least the populist left/populist far-left is, to me, its own particular sort of exhaustingly insufferability. I am proudly a left-liberal and not a centrist and never won't be, but I am still at a point where I can no longer tolerate a big sub-faction of the left. (Though I can't tolerate basically any of the right, minus a bit of the anti-Trump center-right.) I am going to lose my mind when I see vast numbers of leftists demand people not vote for the Democratic party presidential candidate in 2028.

18. meowface ◴[] No.45777750{4}[source]
There is some (though in my opinion not much) merit to how right-wingers portray the "Russiagate" thing. The Russian government absolutely did try to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump and hurt Clinton, via hacking and releasing emails and via social media influence campaigns, but there was a chunk of the left that from the start seemed to firmly believe Trump was some kind of literal espionage agent of Putin.

While it's difficult to deny Trump was a de facto asset of Putin in many ways, a surprising number of people were almost entering right-wing conspiracy theory territory with their epistemological practices regarding Trump's personal involvement with Putin.

Right-wing conspiracism is orders of magnitude worse and more frequent than left-wing conspiracism, but some people were way too willing to believe some of the more radical Russian collusion speculation despite no evidence.

19. meowface ◴[] No.45777801{4}[source]
Even before COVID things were shifting - the antivax part of the left at that time were mostly only sort of aesthetically on the left. I think this Twitter exchange sums up my feelings about that counterargument: https://i.imgur.com/gNXJ6Wl.jpeg

Also, I think it's important to separate "left of center" and "leftist". Liberals and leftists are very different. "Progressive left-liberals" are fans of democracy and freedom and don't like bigotry and authoritarianism and Trump. "Leftists" are often fans of Lenin and Stalin and Pol Pot and killing groups of people who aren't ideologically aligned and instating one-party dictatorships and violently suppressing dissent. In leftist parlance, "leftist" = "Marxist" while "liberal" = "capitalist belonging to the moderate wing of fascism". In the US, politics is best described as not two but four factions: leftists, liberals, rightists, and neo-Nazis. Often neo-Nazis will form coalitions with the rightists to help achieve major goals; historically leftists would form coalitions with the liberals, but this seems to be occurring less and less.

Although leftists will insist the notion is absurd and anti-intellectual, horseshoe theory contains a lot of truth in it.

20. pstuart ◴[] No.45778252{3}[source]
I'm a fan of Andrew and am impressed by how he's evolved from documenting stupid kids to actually reporting on issues of interest.

I agree that one catches more flies with honey rather than vinegar, but many times it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it -- they're gonna stick to their guns. A prime example of this is in Jordan Klepper interviews where he asks Trump supporters how they feel about something horrible that Biden did, to which they express their indignation; then he reveals that it was actually Trump and they dismiss it because it "doesn't matter".

21. onetimeusename ◴[] No.45779423{3}[source]
White supremacists were responsible for the 2020 riots.
replies(1): >>45779649 #
22. pstuart ◴[] No.45779649{4}[source]
You mean Umbrella Man? https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-rio...

Yes, agents provocateur are a persistent threat for delegitimizing protests.

An in-depth look at the problem: https://acleddata.com/report/demonstrations-and-political-vi...

23. mensetmanusman ◴[] No.45784645[source]
“ The problem of debunking right-wing misinformation is that it doesn't seem to matter.”

The problem with nihilism is that it’s wrong.

24. habinero ◴[] No.45787896{4}[source]
I've heard right wing people claim 2 and 5, and I wouldn't call 1 or 4 "popular" by any stretch of the imagination.

3 is just a weirdly-phrased version of a real problem.