[NEW YORK TIMES] Should Biden appoint a "reality czar"?

And I would disagree, I understand the concept of the marketplace of ideas, and stand by my comments regarding the subject.

Social media platforms banning Trump is a very clear and strong example of the marketplace of ideas taking form.

 

One thing I’ve learned from my crazy mother is I think Elon Musk is accepted by the crazy right. He could actually do it. But he’s so damn busy.

 

He's going to take humanity to Mars. He said so.

 

I don't think it'll be effective, there will always be a crowd that prefers a juicy conspiracy theory. Sadly fighting disinformation with more disinformation may be more effective, e.g. don't do insurrection cos Biden is actually trump after face swap surgery; or don't attend protest on x date cos it's a false flag operation

 

It’ll be a waste of time. The only thing that’ll change the view of reality is if FoxNews finally changes their standards for what is truth vs propagated disinformation. As well as them seeing themselves disadvantaged in the workplace when corporate America takes ethical standards on certain issues like they have in the past with racism, sexism, etc.

We are at a point where QAnon and other white nationalist cults are so toxic to society that I suspect corporate America to start policing some of that in the process of candidate selection and promotion.

With Republicans pushing “Right to work” state laws for decades, it’ll be very hard for any worker to have any case if they are let go because of QAnon affiliation or Proud Boy support etc. I think that’s how we eventually get out of this state of anti truth cult movement. There is likely a price to be paid at a personal level that is a lagging indicator.

 

I think it was ten years ago, fresh off Bush, when I thought that we needed more story tellers who can distill things like the Big Short or the Enron Bust into narratives common people could easily understand and build upon. In a sense, it was like a momma bird chewing up facts and vomiting down the throats of people who couldn't yet digest the details. One could argue 60 Minutes started that story telling trend and doomed news networks into janky yet profitable investigative exposes, but I think the difference is that I wanted it more to be like elevator pitches or 10 minute executive summaries that average people would sit through.

We more or less have that now in the form of podcasts, AM talk radio or even Daily Show-esque segments. Seeing the actual idea as a product, it's still too dangerous. As dangerous as the best Michael Moore documentary that can rouse the passions of people who have a decent grasp of the broad picture but not the details that make the story (hmmm each states' vote counting process?).

I thought it was a good idea at the time because people were easily duped into war. Many Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and wanted to bomb Agrabah. I don't think it's because all Americans are stupid, but we are over worked, highly narcissistic and ready to inflict punishment when it's sanctioned (by government, media or peers). That last cultural bit might be from our puritanical roots and from self loathing through original sin or through chronic feelings of inadequacy salved by an unending stream of products.

If news and politics aren't enjoyable or profit inducing to the individual, an average working stiff will more or less devote half an hour to local/network news and call it a day. That's probably why Sinclair Broadcasting exists, though Sinclair is a symptom and not the root cause.

That behavior is still there and will continue to be there despite Truth Commissions and Reality Czars. Our trust of experts is purposely weaved in our society's call for specialization. I don't need to know how to fix a toilet or even make (or spell) a souflee to survive. I don't need to know law to start a business. Everyone has their role enough so that you can focus all your energy to be the best at your role so you can afford to pay for the best person for whatever role you need...

I stumbled onto a reference of Harry Franfurt's work On Bullshit in an article I read about Trump. Then I dug up a long review about it that I posted a decade ago, and it still encapsulates Trump's presidency and our media scions near-sociopathic need bullshit/shame us into desired behaviors. The book had examples on Clinton and Bush. Clinton had charisma and loved to work the crowd. Frankfurt uses the moment of "I didn't inhale" to describe how bullshit didn't need to matter whether the statement was true or not. It's a matter of displaying effort previously unmentioned/unearned and a game between the bullshitter and the audience. The way he bullshitted was an inside joke with his crowd. Sound familiar? That's how Trump won his debates. He'd just crack a joke like how fat Rosie O' Donnel was when cornered with a gotcha/mean question. The taped debate before the live studio audience would laugh and you could almost hear half the room shake their heads and say "That's my Trump!"

Maybe Trump ramped up that confidence job and did jack **** because he only needed to bullshit the effort to placate his base, but that's only half the story. The bullshit game is a contract between the bullshitter and in crowd. What did the crowd get out of it? They didn't have to hear the nasty truth about things like coal kills everything around it slowly and surely. Or maybe...masking and isolation is only a prelude to a harsher new day to day reality for the next 12-18 months.

Magical thinking is like the dark half of the coin when we call for transparency and sunlight. On the less extreme end, it's why you don't tell your partner she gained weight or that your friend's newborn is breathtaking. You bend the truth with the people you get along with, why not bend the truth at another level? What's the harm...it's at most your 100s of facebook friends who spend more effort to get along with. If it makes them happy or makes them think you have a better sense of the universe. What's the harm...

Those thoughts are mostly tied to things that happened ten+ years ago. Why are things different to the point where wonks through out terms like "Post truth society" or people try to explain QAnon's virulence? It's obviously the internet, but the reason is so mundane, that it's not mentioned. We're being fed firehose after firehose of information, and each year it doesn't consolidate rather expands like compound interest. Each year the world generates data at an annual growth rate of 61%. Our mental buffers are constantly challenged and people take that challenge by consuming whatever's on their phones.

Ever tried reading EULAs for an app? What if, for every concept worth a damn, people had to read a EULA's worth of material in order to make a reasoned opinion on it? Something like aforementioned vote counting procedures (one for each state) or heaven forbid, a small 10 page book on the country we want to invade or liberate...

That would be my idea of what the "marketplace" would be in its ideal form. Consolidated drops of information that helps you navigate more ungodly amounts of info. A wiki for ideas but just as easy as wikipedia to navigate and organize (not easy in practice to curate the abstract...)

Then again, we're dealing with powerscales that are unimaginable unless you're hired by Big Tech to crack those problems. How do youtube comments fare in this? Reddit is a good yet flawed marketplace for a group of narrow demographics. Memes will get more votes than the best articulated ideas. Repeated memes will get more votes than a newer articulated idea. Try harder redditers? But they are. The economy they have in place for reps or medals gamifies their best members to try harder for what they're asked for.

Power scales in free and unfettered systems usually trend towards the 80/20 rule. In the internet's case, 5% of the websites that exist wins all the eyes. A bit similar to media companies being owned/controlled by a handful families. But are the "best ideas" the top 5 or 20%? Even the best ideas can be subjective and only suitable for that moment in time. Am I really going to dig into page 2 even if all ideas are like one's own children, not better or worse qualitatively? (though I have my favorites)

That marketplace continues to be a work in progress.

This rant only goes into honest actors. "Flooding the zone" is a cynical effort to shotgun fine print and bullshit into exhausting people and cause them to distrust source and subject matter entirely. When experts discredited by gotchas, institutions fail to do what their mission states, and things become grey and unsimple, that is when normal people start hopping on the QAnon train. Their mental buffers can't handle the load. They consolidate and commit for meaning. Meaning then becomes a much different and powerful animal.

 

I'm looking forward to the Reality Czar that gets appointed by Trump 2.0. That's the only thing we were missing the last 4 years.

It never ceases to amaze me how a party that is currently in power acts like it will never not be in power.

 

That would work without mass disinformation on the scale we are seeing now. With mass disinformation at speed of light... we got a serious problem that individual hard work along hasn't been enough. History is litter with examples of society continuing down harmful ways that did not change until the gov step in (seat belt law, ban cig ads and cig free buildings)...

Evidence: There is plenty of great rebutting and reasoning for Covid vaccine safety by many individuals, journalist, gov agencies, etcs. It didn't work. 42% of GOP is likely never going to take the Covid vaccine.

The burden is on everyone, including the gov. Why must the gov be this scary boogie man that we need to keep in the closet? They can be part of the solution. Asking for transparency in alg to understand how they choose extreme and misinformation for views is very reasonable. Making laws to prevent mass mindless assimilation of disinformation and extremist contents would be a huge benefit to society.

 

This is the scary boogie man again.

Tell me what's the harm in requiring social media to be transparent in their alg? That is not policing thought, that is seeing alg and how they influence the mass. And you know what, maybe that it itself is enough. Once we know, the "individuals" can then understand and recommend policies and put pressure on social media companies.

Because we want to solve a problem with precision as much as possible. The only reason we radiate the hell out of a human body is because we have to in order to save it. If we have a pinpoint drug to kill cancer cell, we do that immediately. If you don't use new law or pressure to get a better understanding of mass disinformation, then perhaps you go with the radiate the hell out of social media platform (or whatever) IF it is required to save society (and of course, this is all theory that won't play out - American society would be willing to die before that happen). The gov isn't an evil entity and if some rogue actor within the gov tried to be, that's where we have 1A protection already in place. 1A isn't going to just die because of some czar assigned to try to solve a real and serious issue can act like an emperor and cut it off.

 

So, you don't think we have a real and serious issue with disinformation? Maybe you are part of the alt-reality tribe?

My points stand and until you respond to them: what is the harm of alg transparency, how does a czar kill off 1A, I'm not sure what else to discuss except as you mentioned, you got a scary boogie man mindset and that's the end of it for you.

As for precision, I don't think that's naive. I think we all want precision, but we do tend to go there when we aren't capable or doesn't have the info to be - eg. not understanding the black box alg that social media uses.

 

Thank you for engaging this. I think I see a slight disconnect on the taking ideas seriously part. So, if you read interviews with those that stormed the Capitol, do you believe they wanted more and better journalism? Would an even-longer version of reporting that detailed court decisions throwing our DJT claims have brought them around to see that politicians were blatantly lying to them? And there's literally no cogent way to take Q Anon seriously. I mean, you've said yourself that you don't bother with it. But it is literally ruining some lives right now. "Please, read this long careful article that describes how Democrats are, in fact, not lizard-like demons in disguise. No really, we ran some tests!"

With our completely dispersed monkeysphere, (meaning we have no societal figures and fewer and fewer friends in common whom we trust), we might have something closer to a marketplace of nonsense blooming right now. This marketplace has every economic incentive to feed people misinformation about reality if it engages audience emotions and keeps them coming back. Pretty damned scary.

I don't want a czar necessarily, but I want the smartest people we can find to think about these problems.

I like efforts like this one, designed to help get people out of their bubbles. This, on a grassroots scale, tries to address taking other people and their ideas seriously.
https://livingroomconversations.org/

 

Fair on the word definition. I would also want a more concrete and narrow definition. Or the other side of the coin. Instead of suppressing any "disinformation", how about valuing the seek for truth and knowledge? Some "disinformation" can under some circumstances fit into that definition. Remember, the goal of 1A was for a society to achieve that - seek truth and knowledge, however painful. That also means there are limitation to it when it has very low value to truth seeking and knowledge building.

Intent was not ad hominem at all - I was surprised at your take given my assumption of the definition.

That is one of my concern - we are dealing with black boxes of algs that are powerful and have shaped society for the worse. "reality czar" is nothing more than someone that is appointed to go tackle that issue; think a very smart knowledgeable person that want to solve a serious issue - and again, the person is 1 person that pull together, I would expect, experts in all field, especially outside of the gov to tackle the issue. We do this all the time in the private sector - John, we got this serious issue, go tackle it and report back to the team with your findings and recommendations.

 

It is just one idea, one to better understand one aspect of the issue.

Congress can do their own job of tackling the issue (there has been law proposed along this line already).

I think it's a good idea because there should be an effort to get smarts people together to discuss and try to solve the issue. That's what a "czar" can do. We can assume that we don't know the problem and we shouldn't assume that we already know what's the best solution given that we don't understand. Go tackle that before jumping head over heal on solution - the one policy there (transparancy) is to help get to a better understanding of the issue.

Very high priority to me. I have relatives that is lost in alt-reality land. We have 70% of Republican that believe the election is stolen without any doubt. We have a growing vaccine hesitancy problem that seems to be taking leap toward antivaxx. We have political instability that have cumulated in a violence and lawlessness. 80+% are concerned with spread of false information. 50+% are very concerned. 70% think social media is not accurate and harmful. IOW, the public agrees it's a serious issue too.

And, we can walk and eat at the same time.