On another forum I hang out there was a great long discussion about this when it surface - I was about the only one who thought it wasn't too massive an issue.
So there is concern out there; I'm glad they are being open about it. One less for the conspiracy theorists :)
I think it is a LOT simpler than what you are suspecting. As someone in the comments has pointed out, mass reporting on certain types of articles or certain sources trigger automated review/removal of that content.
Normally, consensus reporting is a good sign that something is undesirable. In this case it has clearly been weaponized. This is a TUNING problem and it seems like social media companies have to find a way to balance on this
Information control is becoming mainstreamed and it’s hilarious that people are so willing to assign to incompetence or error what has been clearly demonstrated to be systems of control and squelching of difficult opinions, especially from big tech.
You see “big tech” (Microsoft, Google, etc.) has been responsible for so much crushing of “misinformation” lately I think it’s comical that people give the benefit of the doubt when these things happen.
Shouldn’t we at least be mocking them for their hilariously dangerous errors and sometimes failures? Isn’t it honestly time to stop calling it a “conspiracy” like it’s not happening.
I’ve run large scale DC operations. I know these things happen. But I seriously think it’s time we started questioning information control practices when they pop up like this — it’s not conspiracy when you have dozens of blatant examples.
I had intended it as just a random thought because it struck me as funny. But seeing the backlash is anything but heartwarming and I really think people should seriously consider what could happen and is likely going to happen and defend against it happening.
There is so much hostility to the idea that big tech would do this, when in fact they have been regularly doing it. Why in the world would you think this isn’t possible and how could anyone honestly assign “accidental” blackouts of organizations to conspiracy in 2023?
It is interesting to see the strongly negative positions that some people take on any of these reports. It is almost like folks can have ulterior motives or know very little about how to protect sources and methods.
Maybe this is an indication of how actually massively this is an issue?
If the fact that the nefarious actions of the US government are the major point of discussion on the main technology sites you visit are not a red flag to you, then maybe your worldview is what really needs this information in order to be better corrected.
I think the point is that this didn't used to constitute suspicious activity. The range of suspicious activity is growing and growing. Something that no one has really talked about yet is the effect recent revelations have had on the overton window (the narrow range of opinions the public will accept)[1]. Having such extreme behaviour exhibited by governments has the effect of making previously questionable policies seem more moderate and acceptable.
It is exactly like some communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no legitimate reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
Note that "most incidents are self reported" kinda sounds good, but really means "we don't have any good systems for finding it", and probably means many incidents are never discovered.
Well while that is troubling enough, the fact that the people behind these accounts representing ministers running a country do not read them before posting it for millions, is also pretty worrisome.
I'm just concerned that we are not having the debates we used to. They've already coined the term "immunity debt" and Twitter accounts belonging to researchers who are raising alarms about jumping to early conclusions attributing this to lockdowns are curiously enough being brigaded.
I'm not saying one thing or the other, I just want to get a nuanced view that is backed by data but hard to do that when those links are getting removed from the platform.
Yeah, exactly. I get blasted all the time for it too. Same suspicion here about other users being on our side, though they might not be able to put their finger on what the problem is.
* "X seems to be a pretty big deal because I keep hearing a lot of people upset about it"
* "I haven't seen anything about X. It must not be that big of a deal."
All social media seems to be moving toward individualized echo chambers, but it's another level when it's an individualized black box controlled by foreign interests.
Not really, I think people are more riled up about a perceived about-face regarding it's founding principles, and to seemingly target certain orgs rather than stick to what many feel it was founded to do which is impartially publicly disclose confidential government & NGO information which is in the public interest.
If you purport to be holier than thou, you'd better make damn sure you at least stick to your story.
I was hoping there would be people here who understand the analyses and could comment on the degree of validity or importance of this. In that sense this submissions has been a disappointment so far. I was not aware of yesterday's submission, but the conversation there seems to only of slightly higher quality than here.
I'm not attached to any particular theory of origin at this stage, just following the updates as a curious human being. Anyone who's spent time on the "new" queue would know that news updates on anything vaguely of interest to HNers gets posted multiple times, as different people come across it.
It's a paradox about being silenced, though, that the only way that fact comes into public consciousness is when a few lucky individuals are able to break through it (like with oppression) or when its time runs out (like with time-limited censorship). So detractors always get to say "see, you're not actually silenced, stop lying!"
> it is making itself a target before it has any real social defenses
The system doesn't exactly have control over who notices it.
Some people are (rightly or not) excited about it and building services, sites, and the like around it. That aspect of its virality certainly isn't a bad thing if the community wants to live past that coming critical inflection point you suspect will happen.
It's not even the primary problem. I can't believe the incredible outsize attention this is receiving, as though 2016 were the first time people were passing around false or misleading information online.
Overall the degree to which information is being controlled right now is pretty alarming.
reply