World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The example is pretty standard, but I feel obligated to caution people about the author (just because he's linked to here and some unassuming people might dive in).
Scott Alexander falls loosely under the TESCREAL umbrella of ideologies. Even in this article, he ends up concluding the only way out is to build a superintelligent AI to govern us... which is like the least productive, if not counterproductive, approach to solving the problem. He's just another technoptimist shunting problems onto future technologies that may or may not exist.
So, yeah, if anyone decides they want to read more of his stuff, make sure to go in informed / having read critiques of TESCREALism.
I don't know much about the author and as far as I know haven't read any of their other work, so while it's certainly possible they're pushing some shitty "AI will save us all" techbro agenda, I really don't feel convinced of that based on that Washington Spectator article or the short paragraphs near the end of the mountain of text preceding it on the Slate Star Codex. There's a lot of guilt by association implied in the page about TESCREAL but I'm not seeing any alarming smoking guns re: Scott Alexander and his Wikipedia page doesn't seem to call out any concerning incidents or positions (not to imply all of its content is complete or truthful).
I'm not invested in this enough to try pushing back more but if you want to claim the author is roughly equivalent to an Elon Musk or some red pill monosphere proponent I'd expect more evidence. It's good to be mindful of sources of info in general though, I agree with the sentiment of "follow those seeking the truth, avoid those claiming to have found it."
I understand, a good instinct to have. Unfortunately I have read so much in such a piecemeal way I cannot really compile a specific list. But I can point you to where "evidence" can be found. I don't expect you to read any of this, but if you want to evaluate Alexander's views further it will help:
A lot of what I say comes from my experiencd spending way too much time following these socisl circles and their critics online. Unfortunately, the best way I know to see for yourself is to dive in yourself. Godspeed, if you choose to go that way.
Edit: of course, reading his work itself is a great way , too, if you have time for that.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and suggested reading. Holy shit, paywalls are hardcore now (NYT link dividing the screen space literally in half) but fortunately there was an archive link to eliminate that issue. I was only really interested in knowing the details around Scott Alexander in so far as I didn't want to be unknowingly spreading messages from Hitler 2.0 or something, but still without having a dog in this fight, I get the impression the ominous dangers implied about the nefarious Rationalists is overselling the reality of the situation.
The way the author/group's positions are offhandedly portrayed (especially under the Life in the Grey Tribe heading) definitely raise red flags for me, but just opening a couple of the links and reading the content myself I didn't come away with nearly the same impression of intent. (NOTE: I'm adding the bolding to certain elements)
NYT
Right away I can envision another "why would you want to silence me? I'm allowed to say anything if this is a free country!" excuse from some jerk online. I read that post on SSC and it has the following before it even begins:
There's also no hits on "speech", "absolute", "censor" in the post. It doesn't come across to me like someone advocating for the unrestricted right to spread their hateful/harmful ideology. A figure like Elon Musk has made his positions pretty clear about why he (nominally, but not actually) believes in absolute free speech, the Grey Tribe post seems to mostly be a criticism about in-group purity testing and self-censorship.
NYT
Again, it's easy to imagine this is going to be another red pill argument about how giving disenfranchised people an equal shot is really just repressing white people etc. With more of the quote providing context it doesn't read as that (to me):
That NYT piece was really hung-up on his real name throughout though which to me raises questions about their motivations behind their stated concerns. It would be understandable if this was a scenario where some NGO was masquerading as a single real person, but here I can easily understand why someone would prefer to keep their offline identity de-emphasized.
Re: Reddit
In this area I'm going to willfully stick my head in the sand and ignore completely. I just can't bring myself to want to wade through that collection of bots, bad-faith users, advertisers etc. to try to separate fact from fiction.
I also have contrarian tendencies and I'm not intending this to be a fight about who's right/wrong -- you're clearly far more familiar with this author and subject than I am. And again, I sincerely appreciate the follow-up info. I can certainly see how some positions taken or discussed can act like a beacon attracting bad elements, but I also think that is nearly universal whenever there's people involved - and that it's possible to interpret virtuous things into a call for evil if predisposed. There's some truth to dangers of gazing into the abyss and all that, but I also think it's foolish to be concerned that everyone that reads Catcher in the Rye is going to get bad ideas about presidents, ya know?
Ya know, all perfectly fair.
Good choice on reddit. As much as I love a good 'ol sneer, there's a lot of jargon and clowning to wade through. There are a lot of genuinely solid critiques of his views there, though.
I appreciate you doing your due diligence on this, but I'm not really sure where to keep this discussion going. I still stand by my original comment's warning. Reading Siskind is probably not going to corrupt an unassuming reader to immediately think XYZ bad thing. His writings tend to be very data heavy and nuanced, to his credit.
Is he Hitler 2.0? No, far from it.
But he shares a set of core assumptions with the other ideologies, and the circles between his community and the other communities have large overlap. If you start with one, it's likely you encounter the other. If you start to think like one, it's a small jump to start thinking like the other. (From experience).
In my opinion, anyone encountering Siskind for the first time is well-served by an understanding of TESCREAL—which they are likely to encounter in either his posts, its comments, or linked material—, and its critiques—which should help them assess what they encounter through a critical lense.
That's more or less what I wanted to give caution about, which may or may not have come across correctly.
(Not that his stuff is entirely innocent either, but beside the point)
Not an unreasonable concern about wandering into dark ideologies or not appreciating nuance leading to bad conclusions. It's also entirely possible I was just reading more into your comments than was intended. I don't currently have any plans to seek out more of his writing but I'll be sure to keep our conversation in mind to filter it through if I do (and others should as well).
Was nice to have a respectful and constructive conversation online, thanks again :)