[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1683461356801.jpg ( 36.68 KB , 984x527 , neo mouth sealed.jpg )

 No.469111

In the west censorship is becoming worse, and the question is how do you negate the bias that can be introduced by censorship ?

Lets assume we want to rule out that we get our perception of reality manipulated by the removal of information. Negating the manipulation efforts of the censor becomes a high priority, because we have to assume that this is done to obfuscate predators from our view that seek to harm us.

The major problem is that the normal method of evaluating claims on the basis of evidence will fail once there is an actor that is capable of controlling what evidence is available. It is very easy to create an extremely distorted perception of reality if evidence can be selectively withheld. It's lying by omission.

The question becomes how can this be counteracted ?

One could analyze the bias on the basis of what gets censored and what isn't and apply a proportional counter-bias. Treating it like a geometry problem. So if the censor applies a +3 bias in one direction, you apply a -3 bias into the opposite direction to cancel it out. Of course biases usually aren't very consistent, they vary in direction and the distance, and that will increase your error rate, because you'll never be able to cancel it out exactly.

From a logical perspective if evidence can be censored there can't be a burden of evidence. You can't demand evidence while blocking the ability to provide evidence. Forgoing the confirmation by evidence does work to an extend, because all the true claims that had their evidence censored, will pass "the test". But there is of course a problem because you might have many false positives where false claims pass "the test" as well. The calculation here is that the censored information is usually the most importing thing to know, and that can be worth the false positives. It's not as bad as it seems at first because not all evidence gets censored and you can still refute most false claims, but some false information will slip through.

We have to accept that if we want an accurate understanding of reality then the only choice is to overcome censorship. Until that is achieved, the accuracy of our reality perception will suffer regardless what we do, because there is no substitute for accurate and complete information.

I'm asking if anybody has other tactics to help with this problem.
>>

 No.469114

File: 1683465577789.png ( 442.59 KB , 978x1258 , gigachad-is-transformed-v0….png )

Learn to distinguish, as best possible, the spirit of universal consciousness (i.e., 'god') from the voice of the superego
>>

 No.469118

We desperately need more serious, independent journalists. I think there's a serious problem we have, though, in that a lot of the few independent or small journalists we have will, I think, end up serving some bias to the point of being inaccurate. To this, I can really only offer that people doing this need to be principled. Objective truth is a goal in and of itself, and so is recording what exists.
>>

 No.469119

>>469118
You are correct that we need more independent investigative journalists.

But you are wrong to attack the ones that we have, because there is nothing wrong with them. They do have their own biases, but that can't be helped, it's not a matter of principle or integrity. You need a lot of minds to create a reasonably unbiased view of reality, the world is complicated it requires a lot of work to gather all the data and analyze all the factors. The quality is good , we need more quantity.

On balance listening to independent journalists gives you a much more accurate view of reality, than if you listen to mainstream media.
>>

 No.469121

learn a asian/african language and just copy paste the material there for the english speaker,
>>

 No.469127

>>469122
I have listened to this, here is my conclusion.

<the not so good

- His really long rant about the spirit of people is super idealist and basically just says the problems of the world are caused by people having the wrong values, as if economic structures aren't the dominant force that shapes the lives of most people.
- He thinks that we need more authoritarian capitalists, which makes me think he needs a Maoist struggle session.
- he low-key shills for fracking and low-key attacks nuclear power
- he does overgeneralizations like all women are npcs that can't think, instead of judging each person on their own merit.
- Towards the end of the podcast where he talks about mythology, he attributes greek atomism solely to Democritus and snubs Epicurus.

<the good

This is entertaining
He makes interesting observations about AI.

He needs to read Marx and other materialists, (he clearly hasn't read marx because he thinks marx = cultural critique by reactionary liberal professors, while the actual marx was doing hardcore economic theory).

Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome