[rrggrr]

The only counter-measure that works against polluting the polity with influence operations is earnestly educating people to be critical consumers of information. Why? Because one cannot empower government to counter-message influence operations without risking an abuse of power.

My son's middle school appears to be tackling this problem to some degree by teaching students to: (a) not accept 'facts' without multiple sources of information; (b) consider the perspective/bias of the story-teller in the sources you consume; and (c) understand that most messages are persuasion.

[gambler]

A good and important counter-measure, but not the only one.

People also need better tools for analyzing and making sense of large quantities of information, especially as it evolves over time. Right now, all we have are search engines and excel spreadsheets, and it's clearly not enough.

It's amazing how prophetic Neil Postman's criticism of computers turned out to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqxgCoHv_aE

Essentially, he noted how computers gave people tools to produce and consume more information, but not the tools to discern, filter and analyze it more effectively. It's a profound and very important observation.

His Six Questions are also more relevant than ever.

[orbital-decay]

> Essentially, he noted how computers gave people tools to produce and consume more information, but not the tools to discern, filter and analyze it more effectively. It's a profound and very important observation.

Is it, really? There's a myriad of analytic tools for every imaginable domain, and even more domain-independent ones. You just need to be skilled enough to use them properly; not because the tools are bad, but because the analysis itself is hard, and even a seemingly simple problem usually needs abstract thinking and domain knowledge.

[bmurphy1976]

The information is coming at you regardless of your expertise. Those who don't have the expertise are at a distinct disadvantage to those who do. The tools may be good in the technical sense, but in the do they help normal people out sense they often are not. I would call that a bad situation, one we need to find creative and effective ways to remedy.

[orbital-decay]

That's just... a fundamental limitation? I don't think there's a way for an unskilled ("normal") person to dissect and analyze the information outside of their understanding in a meaningful way, no matter how creative you get.

[simonh]

I think that's the point. It's not anybody's fault and it's not that anyone is doing anything wrong, it's just a problem we need to take into account and try to mitigate.

[gambler]

>That's just... a fundamental limitation? I don't think there's a way for an unskilled ("normal") person to dissect and analyze the information outside of their understanding in a meaningful way, no matter how creative you get.

This is discussed in depth in Augmenting Human Intellect:

http://dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/000/

[dv_dt]

If only our newspaper organizations took that on more often. I would love to read a media source that just took issues in the spotlight, and just added contextual data, scale comparisons, and analysis to the hot topics.

[r00fus]

For-profit ventures that are part of a media conglomerate or own entire media markets will never do that.

Increasing public funding for media and reinstating the media concentration prevention rules may result in actual investigative journalism as opposed to "reportage"

[lisper]

Wow, that is one of the best long talks I've ever seen. Do you know if there's a transcript out there somewhere?

[mycall]

http://www.paulos.net/teaching/hcc/papers/informing_ourselve...

[lisper]

Thank you!

[jxramos]

YouTube has a transcript feature for newer videos. I wonder if there’s a way to nudge them to process some old content.

[excalibur]

Not finding one. Any volunteers for Rule 35?

[lisper]

I would start here:

https://aws.amazon.com/transcribe/

[starbeast]

>People also need better tools for analyzing and making sense of large quantities of information, especially as it evolves over time. Right now, all we have are search engines and excel spreadsheets, and it's clearly not enough.

Interfaces don't seem to get designed, they just accumulate concretions.

[beginningguava]

This is just legacy media trying to regain power. Fake news has been around forever, look up Yellow Journalism.

The difference now is that the 5 multi-national corporations that controlled nearly everything we saw and heard are losing their monopoly on what information reaches the population.

Everybody loved big data and social media when Obama used it to win and when Arab Spring happened. But now it's a threat to democracy, I wonder what changed?

[azemetre]

Telling likely voters to vote for your candidacy is drastically different than telling people Climate Change is a Chinese hoax or that thousands of men, woman, and children seeking asylum are terrorists.

[mc32]

But it’s also false to claim most are women and children and that most are fleeing violence (most are men seeking economic sdvantage) and that entering illegally deserves as much rights as people who’ve applied legally and have waited decades. It’s also false to insinuate the Obama admin didn’t use teargas against wannabe border crossers. And it’s also false to insinuate it’s illegal. France, just the other day had suppressed a demo against taxes in Paris using teargas but no one’s outraged at that. Teargas is used as crowd control in many euro countries.

[simonh]

I'm generally pro-immigration, but you're right and make valid points. I'm a UK citizen but we face similar problems in nature if not magnitude. My position is that controlled, proportionate immigration is good for the country (UK, but generally too) both culturally and economically and should follow legal due process.

My main criticizm of the Trump administration's handling of the situation, as an outside observer, is that they are persistently and maliciously bypassing due process (muslim ban imposed arbitrarily even on legal residents while people were in the air, separating children from their parents, etc). Frustration and revulsion at these actions naturally throws a sharp spotlight on whatever else the administration does with regard to immigration, and rightly so. As I said, you're probably right on those incidents, but it's also fair to say that the degree to which a tactic is used also matters, and they deserve every single bit of enhanced scrutiny they face on this issue.

[loveyourmother]

The fact that people are downvoting you for just point out hypocrisy is sad.

[sparkie]

Can you cite somewhere where somebody has said that thousands of men, women and children are terrorists?

I've heard claims that there are terrorists among the thousands of men, women and children seeking asylum (or work).

Fake news is not just made up stories. It is also misrepresenting the words of other people to support your political motives.

[phdinfunk]

However, the united states government has got at least a 70 year history of being just as bad as the effects of fake news.

https://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/17/haitis_history_noam_c...

Or see the 70s and 80s and South America, or our reasoning for invading Iraq in the 2000s, or the 1960s and Vietnam. Or the 1953 coup d'etat against Iran because BP was going to lose their investments. And, and, and....

The answer isn't trying to create another hegemon of "real" news, like it was in the good old days of monoculture. The answer really is in what the person above said, people have to be more discerning. Also, the problem really isn't "new" because it really wasn't 'better' in the past -- just invisible to most of the people who are wringing their hands about this in 2018.

[nabla9]

Fake news and yellow journalism are not the same thing. Yellow journalism is just sensationalism, entertainment and bad journalism.

Fake news is deliberate disinformation for propaganda purposes.

[coldtea]

Nope, yellow journalism peddled extensively in "deliberate disinformation for propaganda purposes" as well.

It's not just something like sensational stories or gossip columns that's yellow journalism. It was used for political purposes to scare the population, attract voters, and so on...

[DFHippie]

Using electronic media to influence opinion isn't all "big data". Obama didn't use massive deception, for one thing. Putin's program involved lots of people pretending to be people they weren't to say things that weren't true. These two campaigns aren't different sides of the same coin, as you imply.

[naiveai]

It's almost as if every piece of technology is a double edged sword. Anything that can be used to disseminate information can also be used to disseminate disinformation. It's the nature of things like this.

[apozem]

> Everybody loved big data and social media when Obama used it to win and when Arab Spring happened. But now it's a threat to democracy, I wonder what changed?

Obviously you are implying that Obama voters dislike "big data" and social media because Trump won. This is lazy strawmanning.

Perhaps we are unhappy with the role the internet played in the 2016 election for other reasons? Perhaps it is bad when voters are fed objectively false stories? Perhaps a democracy is only possible with an informed populace that uses common facts and a shared reality?

[throwaway42501]

It isn't a strawman for so long as individuals with a certain brand of politics presuppose their own immunity to disinformation and a tacit monopoly on what is factual and what constitutes being 'informed'.

That the propaganda self-described 'progressives' consume tends to come from sources with a greater degree of social prestige and more subtle ways of misleading through omission and clever rhetoric doesn't make it anything but propaganda.

[tboyd47]

The "flooding" attacks identified by the researchers work by raising the cost of consensus building in a democratic society. Your approach helps deal with the increased cost on an individual level, but it does not help prevent the attacks or counteract their effects on a societal level. i.e. if I can raise the cost of getting quality information from 2 cents to $200 for everybody, you can empower certain people by giving them $200, but you can't bring the price back down to what it was.

[zackmorris]

For the reasons you gave: as a litmus test for whether a politician is a statesman or a shill, I look at whether he/she supports public education or not.

[clarkmoody]

Talk about a whiplash moment!

GP was talking about critical examination of evidence during the education process. Then you mention public education, as if that provides what GP meant.

How about a politician that makes the distinction between education and schooling? Let's start there.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Which do you think is more likely to develop students into citizens capable of independent thought:

a) Sitting at a desk. Not allowed to talk unless called upon. Exactly following a schedule determined by authority figures.

b) Being free to move about the room. Able to choose your activity with your peers.A constructivist or "discovery" model, where students learn concepts from working with materials, rather than by direct instruction.

The first describes the typical public school. The second describes a Montessori school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education

Given the inertia of the system, it is unlikely that the public education system can be reformed from what it is. Why not support parents choosing a school based on what they consider best for their children as long as the schooling meets minimum standards? However, when politicians support this options, there are people that paint them as villains for "not supporting public education". Someone can support "public education" the concept of educating the public, and not support "public education" the system which is often driven by various special interest groups.

[GVIrish]

My school district actually offers public Montessori classrooms. It's a lottery to to get in but it is available.

The reason people get up in arms about the whole "school choice" thing is that it is often used as a way to disguise attacks on the public education system. 'Give people vouchers so they can choose whatever school they want.'

Many times it is meant to funnel money into private charter schools and starve the public education system. There are no price controls so the reality is that people will still be priced out of the best private schools.

Not saying everyone who supports vouchers has ulterior motives but there are some people pushing them who absolutely have ulterior motives. And ultimately I don't think that the public school is hopeless because there are plenty of districts and even states that have great schools. It's just that there's a huge gulf between the best public schools in America and the worst.

[bsder]

Allocate the same teacher/student ratio and randomize the students in a public school and at a private Montessori and get back to me with the data.

Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive problems and force them back to the public system. The moment you randomize the students, the private schools drop back to the mean (or, generally, worse).

I find this unfortunate, because education is in dire need of some real, evidence-based, advances. We have a lot of new data about achievement and learning.

However, putting it to practice requires money, time and a LOT of effort. And you will have to fight the parents, too.

[dragonwriter]

> Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive problems and force them back to the public system.

The single biggest factor is that private schools, as non-default choices, automatically filter for parental engagement in education, even before considering the filters they put in place in terms of admissions criteria.

Students with parents engaged in their education do better.

[frabbit]

> Students with parents engaged in their education do better

IMHO this is the crucial thing. And it is one of the aspects of Montessori that some parents who are simply aspirational-consumers are a bit thrown by initially.

[frabbit]

Private Montessori schools often have a much higher pupil/teacher ratio than public schools: the age-mixed structure of the class which encourages children more adept in particular tasks to work with those who are less adept makes this metric less important.

[humanrebar]

> Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive problems and force them back to the public system.

This happens with public schools except the mechanism is raising housing prices until problematic people aren't even in the neighborhood.

[johnchristopher]

I am not downvoting you but I disagree. A friend of mine has two daughter in a Montessori like school. One of them has a young teacher, the other a more experienced one. One of them is severely lacking in basic arithmetic and grammar and the other one is striving.

Anecdata but when I add my experience and feedback from acquaintances in teaching position I conclude that the style doesn't matter as much as the teacher.

[malvosenior]

> One of them is severely lacking in basic arithmetic and grammar

This describes like 80% of people who graduate from public high school. I think it's worth acknowledging that most people struggle with what a lot of us consider "the basics".

[frabbit]

"Montessori" on its own does not mean too much: there are large gaps between AMI Montessori and Froebel, London School etc.

AMI only accepts trainee teachers who have already have a bachelors (as a minimum) and their pedagogy seems to be more rooted in experimental results than simply psychological theories (see e.g. Angeline Lillard's book for further details http://www.montessori-science.org/montessori_science_genius.... )

[mattcaldwell]

Striving for what???

[millisecond]

Thriving, I bet

[johnchristopher]

Woops, sorry :)p

"thriving"

[wahern]

c) Socratic method where an instructor guides inquiry using incisive questioning but never provides answers outright.

You'll always need "a)" for basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, and for providing basic facts and principles. "b)" doesn't even require a school as it's something kids should be doing, anyhow. It's also expensive, especially when you get to more abstract concepts, which is why this is a type of education typically only enjoyed by the privileged, both inside and outside school. And it can't accomplish the depth of understanding that "c)" can, nor cultivate more general analytical skills.

"c)" is the most important, but it also requires the most skilled teachers, especially in middle and high school. It could easily be applied more widely in elementary school, though.

[wowzap]

You should do some reading on pre-public education America, there actually wasn't much demand for it and private education served communities very well.

[soundwave106]

Pre-public education America was also more rural.

The rise of public education is tied to some degree to industrialization and urbanization in the 19th to early 20th century. (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6403-6_...). This makes sense as industrialized jobs (even the industrialization that occurred in rural areas) often require more complex skillsets.

As I see it, our society requires more complex skillsets than ever. So the need for an educated population is actually greater today compared even to when public education first rose up.

I'm fine exploring many ways to increase educational opportunity (which may include the inclusion of private firms). But based on the private college market (think diploma mill scams), I'm very distrustful of any politician who thinks that completely dumping education onto the private market with zero oversight is a good idea.

[vkou]

Exactly how well did private education serve black communities in America?

That demographic had a >50% illiteracy rate, in 1900. [1]

[1] https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

[NeoBasilisk]

You won't get an answer to this.

[excalibur]

It was a rhetorical question.

[__jal]

Which communities would those be?

[antidesitter]

What exactly do you mean by "supports public education"?

[seneca]

I'm reading this as you saying anyone who doesn't support public education is a shill. If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then? This strikes me as you essentially saying "anyone who doesn't think the way I do on this topic shouldn't be trusted".

[Jedd]

I read it more as 'anyone who doesn't support public education isn't a person that should be setting policy for society'.

[antidesitter]

Really? How did you read it that way? Seems pretty clear the GP specifically used the term "shill".

[Retra]

You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean. Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent.

[antidesitter]

> You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean.

What do you think the word “shill” means to most people? I’m baffled at your attempt to characterize this as “nitpicking”.

> Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent.

It’s pretty clear the author intended to call politicians who don’t “support public education” shills. There’s nothing “nuanced” about that.

If you don’t think calling such people “shills” was the intent, I’m curious to hear your alternative interpretation.

[metamet]

> If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then?

The libertarian argument against public education (pushed by Cato, etc) is that public schooling is worse than private school systems, therefore we should be not spending public money on education, but rather shuffle those resources into vouchers and other ways to fund the private organizations offering private education.

They advocate for starving public education and giving those resources to private companies, which are able to selectively allow students through the guise of tuition. In addition to that, removing government standards allows for private education systems to teach "creationism vs evolutionism" as a "valid" scientific debate. Which is isn't. Same with climate change and all those other partisan talking points. Education shouldn't be wrapped up in a way that can be influenced by funders--do you think that the Kochs and DeVoses are not advocating for "education" that promotes their aspirations and biases? That's called indoctrination.

So yeah. Any libertarian who actively believes that we should get rid of public education in favor of private companies influenced by money needs to rethink their position. The free market isn't the panacea they claim it is.

There's very clearly work that needs to be done within the realm of public education. But giving the chalkboard over to people with deep pockets is a far cry from it.

[dragonwriter]

> therefore we should be not spending public money on education, but rather shuffle those resources into vouchers

That's still spending public money, just with less oversight.

[clarkmoody]

No, the proper libertarian argument is that we don't initiate violence against innocent people. In order to tax someone, you must ultimately threaten them with violence. Public schooling is paid for with taxes. Therefore, we oppose it on moral grounds as improper threats of aggression against the public.

[msla]

Here's a critique of Libertarianism (not the same one I posted above, in fact) with an answer to that:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

> If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.

> This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns.

If you don't like this contract, you can vote to change it.

If you can't get enough people on board to change it and you still don't like it, you can leave.

[clarkmoody]

You cannot leave. The US has near-global extradition treaties.

To renounce your citizenship, you must ask permission (which can be denied), then you must pay a fee.

Also, the social contract is not voluntary.

[thanksDr]

I don't get it - How do you fund the police? Or are you 'free' to protect yourself?

[clarkmoody]

Huge topic within libertarianism.

You could start here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7717015-the-private-prod...

[harimau777]

I don't think libertarians are shills in that I believe they are genuine in wanting to improve society. However, in my experience their policies tend to be built on the assumption that the government is entirely restructured in line with libertarian principles. Since that is unlikely to ever happen, those policies that do get implemented tend to assist those who already hold power.

As an example, my understanding is that the libertarian argument for why deregulation will not result in people being hurt by defective products would be something like:

People would not be harmed because corporations would be held accountable for their actions.

Corporations would be held accountable because people can take them to court.

People can take corporations to court because they can hire lawyers.

People can afford to hire lawyers because restrictions on licensing and education that constrain supply would be removed.

So preventing harm from deregulation would also require significant changes to the licensing and education of lawyers.

[GatorD42]

Some libertarians (such as myself) generally believe corporations already have strong incentives to make non-defective products. Some products that compromise safety for cost provide consumers low cost options they would otherwise not have. Efforts to regulate such products to make them safer can cause more harm than good (by making such products more expensive and therefore unavailable so consumers will use something older or less safe).

Currently it costs zero dollars to "hire" a lawyer in a class action against a company for a defective product. If a company has made a defective product there will probably be a class action and you will receive a small settlement. If you have been seriously injured eg by asbestos it also costs zero dollars to hire a lawyer, they work on contingency. I am totally in favor of reforming licensing laws, but if you have been seriously injured and you have a strong legal case, money is not a barrier to getting a lawyer.

Generally I think there is too much regulation and too much litigation, I don't think private litigation is a solution for regulation, I think market incentives are the solution. When there are obviously unsafe products on the market is worth looking deeper to see if consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost.

[mcguire]

I don't think history beat bears that out.

I was just listening to an interview with Deborah Blum on her new book, The Poison Squad, concerning the history of food safety regulations. It seems like most corporations have strong incentives to make defective products; bad products drive out good.

As for litigation, without regulations, you could only sue on the grounds that the corporation knowingly violated some "reasonable" standard of behavior.

One example that comes to mind is vinyl chloride in hairspray:

"The companies did not, however, immediately move to take the chemical out of hairspray. Their major fear seemed to be the possibility of lawsuits. In a January 1973 meeting, industry lawyers warned of the enormous potential legal liability:

""If vinyl chloride proves hazardous to health, a producing company's liability to its employees is limited by various Workmen’s Compensation laws. A company selling vinyl chloride as an aerosol propellant, however, has essentially unlimited liability to the entire U.S. population.""

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/the-crusa...

https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/evidence/secrecy_pop02.html

[stanleydrew]

Setting aside the barriers to getting a lawyer when you have no money which I think you dismiss too readily, I am more interested in how you would propose to determine whether consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost?

[GatorD42]

People make cost-safety trade offs all the time, the probabilities are so low that they may not explicitly think of them as such.

Have you ever driven a long distance instead of flying? If so you sacrificed safety for price / convenience - over the same distance flying is much safer. Are you driven by a professional chauffeur in an armored S-Class? If not you are sacrificing safety for cost.

You could imagine pushing pro-regulation arguments to absurd circumstances, like making it illegal to drive more than 125 miles (requiring people fly instead) or banning all cars aside from the armored S-Class etc. The side effects of such rules would obviously be very bad, but smaller regulations could have smaller, still deleterious consequences. See the case of unsafe cars in India: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/05/sa...

[msla]

> If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then?

I'm sure some are.

I'm also sure some are honest people who believe things at odds with what we know about market failures.

Here's a market-oriented (that is, based on the idea of market economies) critique of Libertarianism:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertar...

It's founded in, ultimately, game theory, with a lot about coordination problems and defection.

[virmundi]

What does support mean to you? Funding it? Accepting common core? Accepting agendas that teach there 56 are genders?

Your advice seems virtuous. Only support people who fund public education. However, is public education, as it exists today, a good thing? Would you vote for a strong black woman that wants to reform public school to the pre-common core system? Would you support a gay dwarf that wants to revert back to the days of New Math hysteria? Would you support a ciswhite man that wants to keep everything as is? Funding by itself is not a good metric. What to do with the funding is.

[tomjen3]

I wonder what they will do when he questions the teachers