So you're saying that authoritarian measures are the way? Codes of conduct change minds if people are receptive, or they play along so that they don't get abused, and it looks like it's changed their mind.

From where I'm sitting, perceived authoritarian tendencies on the democratic side is a large part of what really motivates Trump voters. That's certainly a lot of the narrative, if you ever visit that side of the media landscape.

Nobody talked about censorship and authoritarian measures. It’s about:

1. Don’t even entertain their distorted reality

2. Put a stop on the spread of misinformation

Stopping your anti-vaccine post from going viral on social media is in no way any different than a scientific magazine refusing to publish the same.

> nobody talked about censorship

> put a stop on spread of misinformation

That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that

> That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that

This is not censorship. Censorship is stopping you from expressing your thoughts. Not publishing your thoughts is not. You can say whatever you want but no newspaper is in any obligation to publish it.

Similar with social media, you can write whatever you want on your personal "page", but they are under no obligation to make sure it reaches other people's feed.

"but they are under no obligation to make sure it reaches other people's feed.."

Nice euphemism for censorship.

Social media is common people writing and reading. And they choose which people to follow etc.

"stopping a post to go viral" means in this context activily manipulating and interfering what information does and does not reach other people.

That is something very different than a newspaper refusing to publish a certain article.

Is censorship really the greatest crime? Is there no intelligent way to facilitate the search for truth that doesn’t require us to get bogged down in accepting every possibility as equally plausible? Of course there is. One thing is certain. Crying “that’s censorship!” will not get us to that place.

There is a time in not that long ago recorded history where this would have risked settling on the conclusion that the Earth was the center of the universe (and it was flat), leeches and blood-letting were a treatment for diseases, and heavier than air flying machines were impossible.

If you’ll permit a scientifically inaccurate analogy here: sunlight is the best disinfectant.

So is fighting misinformation a lost cause, or can we come up with some plan that doesn't involve a small group of people censoring it? Would some kind of distributed rating system like upvotes/downvotes be acceptable, or is the better course of action to be okay with letting all information -- even if specifically designed to trick people, not only the most gullible, but even the most discerning skeptics -- circulate?

I believe the government should not have a say in whether or not all information circulates, but ordinary people who build information sharing systems (and I don't just mean electronic ones) have an opportunity to figure this out. Should they not?

I don't think authoritarian measures are an appropriate way for a government to operate, but in the context of whether something is "against HN rules" I think making it known that an idea is harmful is a good thing.

It all comes down to whether or not the community in question is one in which members can readily leave without cost. I don't agree with making anti-vaxxers change their ways by government force, but I'm into being intolerant of them in other ways to the point that they'll come around and obviate any need for governmental force in the first place.

How can you be sure that the censors will always be on the side of the angels?

Follow-up question: how can you be sure that you, personally, are on the side of the angels? Especially if you have never been allowed to hear the opposing point of view?

Seriously, the growing support for censorship in the previously libertarianish Tech community has been the worst development of the last decade.

Actually, I don't care for censorship. I'd rather let the idea be presented and let the intolerance for it drown it out by way of copious rebuttals, not removal. I won't know if I'm on the side of the angels, but I'll know I'm in good company and I'll have heard both sides at levels roughly proportionate to the size of the population interested in defending each side.

In hindsight, I see how citing codes of conduct implies support for censorship, when my actual intent was simply to demonstrate another example of "intolerance" having noble goals.

These are fine questions, and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans. But unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than everything else? Undoubtedly yes. I think it must be the starting point and possibly the ending point for all discussions of this nature. To use another tool you must first convince me it is better than Scientific Consensus.

"ut unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true"

Well, I agree with the scientific consensus on a general base. But since science was not always right, I don't see a valid argument from there to censorship.

You want to censor ideas not covered by scientific consensus?

"and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans"

Because, also no. I do not feel uncomfortable. I am strongly against censorship. Open, unrestricted exchange of ideas. If the scientific way is the best (which I believe), then the crackpot approaches will fail naturally. But if you censor those other approaches, you might actually strenghten them.

Your plan is reasonable if human minds were genuinely and effectively open to letting the best ideas win. But they are not. Human minds care more about reputation than veracity and this has important ramifications for plans like yours: namely that they don’t work. Confirmation bias is real and pervasive and as completely in control of my mind as it is of yours. I encourage you to read Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and see if what you purpose still makes sense.

And this is the root of the divide, as far as I can tell. It's quite literally nerds and bullies all over again. Those who see the light and those who think you're a tool for doing so.

Netiquette 101: Don't feed the trolls. (But here we are.)

Everyone thinks the other side is a tool. This is so pervasive it must be completely discarded as a measure of truth.