photochemsyn 9 days ago

A zero-trust model is appropriate for estimating information quality on the internets, as the notion of a 'reliably reputable source' no longer makes much sense (if it ever did).

What this means is that statements from individuals and organizations about real-world events can't really be trusted unless they include links to the data their claims are based on, and are also transparent about how that data was analyzed and interpreted.

  • shalmanese 8 days ago

    Do you have a cite for why this would be the best model?

A4ET8a8uTh0 9 days ago

It is an interesting read. Part of me always wondered to what extent various online personalities ( lately, various game streamers ) sell out ( and to whom ). Unfortunately, and the article does make this point, it is the logical extension of what we as a society have been accepting so far and somehow manages to skirt the rules on 'I am being paid to say that' ( edit: apparently enforcement of discloure is self-disclosure by a given influencer ).

Anecdotally, HN is the last social media I am hanging onto at this point since I did notice a spike in clear propaganda from individuals on Nextdoor and Linkedin.

  • mdorazio 9 days ago

    I would argue the HN monoculture very much has its own brand of propaganda and influencers (see: pg), you just happen to agree with it.

    • MisterTea 9 days ago

      I'm not sure everyone here is a fan of pg. Personally I don't really know who he is beyond some guy who made money with computers and founded YC and HN. Beyond that, if he ceased existing I'd not notice.

      • dc-programmer 9 days ago

        I think he talks about Lisp too or something

        • whatshisface 9 days ago

          You should read his essays, they're good.

          • dc-programmer 9 days ago

            I’ve read a few and there were some bangers for sure. His style seems to be to put forward these grand theories, which has its appeal, but I’m more interested in the empirical style these days

    • A4ET8a8uTh0 9 days ago

      This is actually a very interesting point. Does monoculture somehow prevent propaganda from propagating, because existing 'culture' is already defined to an extent,which prevents opposing views? Or does it simply mean an influencer needs to check various internal checkboxes?

      edit: FWIW, I regularly see people disclose their association if it seems relevant ( "shameless plug" is perfectly acceptable for example ).

      edit2: I thought a little more about what you wrote and I disagreed with Linkedin/Nextdoor posts before, but the last thing that kinda turned me off is a clearly political message that you could tell was written in the most divisive way possible to drive 'engagement'. And short online trek later, it turns out, the same person posted the same thing on their other social accounts. Since it is genuinely harder to tell what is a genuine conversation, I just opted to stop it altogether. HN has its issues, but at least I can typically expect someone to make me hesitate based on their arguments.

      • hulitu 9 days ago

        The only thing which prevents propaganda from propagating is closing the channel through this propaganda propagates. :)

  • s-video 9 days ago

    When I search for a current political topic on twitter, I find a lot of posts from popular and usually verified accounts from both sides of the spectrum, using this rhetoric which shares this identical... cadence? Style? I'm not sure the word for it. But some recent trends with these accounts are starting tweets with "to be clear...", making liberal (lol) use of line breaks, and ending on some short "mic drop" sentence. Like this:

    "To be clear, if you're opposed to student debt forgiveness, you're not advocating for 'fiscal responsibility'.

    You're just an asshole."

    I'm assuming that this trend is just influencers noticing what gets a lot of engagement lately, but they're all copying it so well that it almost feels like they're being coordinated. It's uncanny.

    • LeifCarrotson 9 days ago

      To be clear, that's just the cadence of modern communication: Grandiloquence is out, qualifying language and mic drops are in.

      You're just out of touch.

      • mhuffman 9 days ago

        >Grandiloquence I like this word! Thanks, I am one of today's lucky 10,000.

        I think I am going to start using it in the grandiloquent tone and cadence of Matt Berry.

togs 9 days ago

Related argues "selling out" and "authenticity" are dead and that product and ideology are inextricably linked today.

"selling out" -> ironically embracing brands -> unironically embracing brands

And then, my view:

I used to hold on to this idea of authenticity tightly. Everything I saw I was suspicious of. "Who is paying you to say that? Is this an endorsement? What ideology comes with this message? Who would benefit from me believing this?" But the volume of messages is too vast, and at some point I accept myself under someone's "illusion". Who cares? We (as a society) have moved past the question of commodity fetishism; complaining about it is no longer critique, it's just annoying. "--Yes. And?" We've been writing about the collapse of the "sacred" since at least the 80s.

edmundsauto 9 days ago

There are a huge number of these broker/marketplaces - I know of several in my local city population > 500k. Is this a submarine article, or is the Trump connection relevant (maybe it's controversial?)

Overall, it's interesting but not unique so I ask - why this one? They aren't huge -- 400 total campaigns, targeting "nano" and "micro" influencers: why them?