“How dare X meddle in Y’s business on Z?! Yes, X only tried to influence Y people on Z by talking, and said nothing false. But X talked selectively, favoring one position over another!” Consider some possible triples X,Y,Z:
I prefer to view it as cautionary in that you need enough knowledge to know how to assess and integrate it, so be prepared to gather considerable knowledge on the subject or don't bother gathering it at all.
The usual (and good) argument for free speech (or really, free hearing) is that on average listeners can be better informed if they have access to more different info sources.
Two arguments against this ideologically appealing position:
1. Where we care most about truth finding, criminal trials, the jury is not exposed to the maximal number of information sources. Evidence is screened for prejudicial effect.
2. The human attention space is limited and actually quite small so that listeners may be better informed if the general quality of information is high even at the expense of quantity.
I'm fine with Citizens United for the same reason - an informed electorate is better than an ignorant one. More speech is better than less.
What the FBI did is different - not only did they report information, they created it. It was the actions of the FBI itself that the FBI was reporting on.
That's not "more information". That's creating a cloud of doubt and then pointing at it.
I find it hard to sympathize with a complaint that true information about a candidate for election was revealed.
Exactly, which makes the "Russian intereference" argument easy to rebut. But Robin would generalize beyond the single case. In fact, the usual case involves systematic disinformation.
[Robin's argument would, for example, justify Citizens United.]
[Added.]I think Robin's argument would also justify the electoral meddling by the FBI (of which a far more jandiced view is justified).
As someone who sees an informed electorate as valuable, I find it hard to sympathize with a complaint that true information about a candidate for election was revealed.
It's fine to complain about hacking per se, but it's not fine to complain about *selective* hacking. All hacking is selective.
I don't see what difference it makes whether the hacking is done by a private, US-based, selective hacker vs. a state-sponsored selective hacker.
The vast majority of hacking is private and not state-sponsored. If we're upset about it, better to secure our systems than to complain.
As someone who lived under Russian occupation - this naive abstract argument verges on the level of insanity you hear from European left. Reading this and Tyler's obfuscating post about Putin from yesterday - i think that Taleb stumbled on something profound when he wrote that "Intellectual yet idiot" post.
We should allow a global conversation on important issues, where all can be heard even when they speak selectively.
The notion that Russia's (alleged) release of Hillary's emails is a significant intereference in the U.S. electoral process is too hypocritical for words. (Note, however, that's it's not just about information. I recall how the U.S. justified almost starting a nuclear war about missiles in Cuba - at the same time as the U.S. had completely surrounded the Soviet Union with nuclear bases.)
But the lesson shouldn't be generalized to conclude that there's never anything objectionable in foreign propaganda because the more information the better. Let the funds flow to the Colored Revolutions everywhere! That seems to me to be another variant of U.S. chauvinism.
You are framing this as a question of information, in a quest to seek truth. But surely the reason people object is that these examples are instead about loyalty, and choosing sides in a war. When my wife's friend meddles in my marriage, she surely doesn't have the complete picture of what is happening in my marriage, and I may not want to share with her (because the details are embarrassing). So instead I now have someone else (besides my wife) to fight against, during this attempt to resolve the conflict with my wife. Similarly, when John flirts with my girlfriend, the point is not a question of objective truth about who my girlfriend would be happier being with. The point instead is that my girlfriend was supposed to be loyal to me, and to be in a stronger bond than just a connection of temporary convenience, that could be immediately swapped out for another partner if a slightly better one were to ever come along.
It's not the new information that is objectionable. It's the persuasion attempt on one side, clearly against your own interests. It's the identification of an enemy, a threat to you and your (supposedly) loyal allies. The objection is to a new enemy entering the field of battle, fighting to tear down what you hold valuable. Of course you object to the attack of a new enemy.
The main reason this is confusing is because "internal" is a weird metric to decide when meddling is okay. The problem with the emails isn't "someone said unflattering truths about Hillary Clinton" but "hacking someone's personal correspondence is bad". The problem with John isn't that he's meddling in your affairs, it's that if he's your friend, trying to disrupt your relationship (which will presumably cause you pain) is an unkind thing to do, absent a nobler motive.
The Hillary emails were about what you'd expect, and didn't sway me much. I felt the same way about the Sony hacks. Trump not releasing his tax returns is suspicious, so if they were leaked and we found out that he indeed has less money than he claims, it wouldn't surprise me much and wouldn't sway my opinion much.
But most people don't think this way. They don't follow the Bayesian conservation of probability, where if you know a piece of information will contain bad news, you should update your estimates immediately. In this case, I think it has something to do with the fact that we like to think much more highly of people than they actually are, until faced with incontrovertible evidence. I can guess how bad my friend's internet searches are, but it would be deeply humiliating for them if this information were released.
This sounds like a pretty lame argument against freedom of information I guess. Who's to decide what information gets out? Still, I think it shows why privacy is also an important consideration.
Nothing is more dangerous than a little knowledge. There can be a lot of unpleasantness short of war, and a lot of actions that are just war by another name.
Actual counterargument is now pinned at the top of Donald Trump's Twitter feed.
Keep enveloping yourselves in smarty-pants abstractions!
I prefer to view it as cautionary in that you need enough knowledge to know how to assess and integrate it, so be prepared to gather considerable knowledge on the subject or don't bother gathering it at all.
The usual (and good) argument for free speech (or really, free hearing) is that on average listeners can be better informed if they have access to more different info sources.
Two arguments against this ideologically appealing position:
1. Where we care most about truth finding, criminal trials, the jury is not exposed to the maximal number of information sources. Evidence is screened for prejudicial effect.
2. The human attention space is limited and actually quite small so that listeners may be better informed if the general quality of information is high even at the expense of quantity.
It was the actions of the FBI itself that the FBI was reporting on.
Given that they were taking certain investigatory actions, was it not worse that they announced it?
[See Pseudo-transparency - http://kanbaroo.blogspot.co... ]
I'm fine with Citizens United for the same reason - an informed electorate is better than an ignorant one. More speech is better than less.
What the FBI did is different - not only did they report information, they created it. It was the actions of the FBI itself that the FBI was reporting on.
That's not "more information". That's creating a cloud of doubt and then pointing at it.
I find it hard to sympathize with a complaint that true information about a candidate for election was revealed.
Exactly, which makes the "Russian intereference" argument easy to rebut. But Robin would generalize beyond the single case. In fact, the usual case involves systematic disinformation.
[Robin's argument would, for example, justify Citizens United.]
[Added.]I think Robin's argument would also justify the electoral meddling by the FBI (of which a far more jandiced view is justified).
Nothing is more dangerous than a little knowledge.
An arch-reactionary maxim. Since knowledge always starts small, folks who believe this could never even start a knowledge project.
Do you have any actual counterarguments?
As someone who sees an informed electorate as valuable, I find it hard to sympathize with a complaint that true information about a candidate for election was revealed.
It's fine to complain about hacking per se, but it's not fine to complain about *selective* hacking. All hacking is selective.
I don't see what difference it makes whether the hacking is done by a private, US-based, selective hacker vs. a state-sponsored selective hacker.
The vast majority of hacking is private and not state-sponsored. If we're upset about it, better to secure our systems than to complain.
As someone who lived under Russian occupation - this naive abstract argument verges on the level of insanity you hear from European left. Reading this and Tyler's obfuscating post about Putin from yesterday - i think that Taleb stumbled on something profound when he wrote that "Intellectual yet idiot" post.
We should allow a global conversation on important issues, where all can be heard even when they speak selectively.
The notion that Russia's (alleged) release of Hillary's emails is a significant intereference in the U.S. electoral process is too hypocritical for words. (Note, however, that's it's not just about information. I recall how the U.S. justified almost starting a nuclear war about missiles in Cuba - at the same time as the U.S. had completely surrounded the Soviet Union with nuclear bases.)
But the lesson shouldn't be generalized to conclude that there's never anything objectionable in foreign propaganda because the more information the better. Let the funds flow to the Colored Revolutions everywhere! That seems to me to be another variant of U.S. chauvinism.
You are framing this as a question of information, in a quest to seek truth. But surely the reason people object is that these examples are instead about loyalty, and choosing sides in a war. When my wife's friend meddles in my marriage, she surely doesn't have the complete picture of what is happening in my marriage, and I may not want to share with her (because the details are embarrassing). So instead I now have someone else (besides my wife) to fight against, during this attempt to resolve the conflict with my wife. Similarly, when John flirts with my girlfriend, the point is not a question of objective truth about who my girlfriend would be happier being with. The point instead is that my girlfriend was supposed to be loyal to me, and to be in a stronger bond than just a connection of temporary convenience, that could be immediately swapped out for another partner if a slightly better one were to ever come along.
It's not the new information that is objectionable. It's the persuasion attempt on one side, clearly against your own interests. It's the identification of an enemy, a threat to you and your (supposedly) loyal allies. The objection is to a new enemy entering the field of battle, fighting to tear down what you hold valuable. Of course you object to the attack of a new enemy.
The main reason this is confusing is because "internal" is a weird metric to decide when meddling is okay. The problem with the emails isn't "someone said unflattering truths about Hillary Clinton" but "hacking someone's personal correspondence is bad". The problem with John isn't that he's meddling in your affairs, it's that if he's your friend, trying to disrupt your relationship (which will presumably cause you pain) is an unkind thing to do, absent a nobler motive.
The Hillary emails were about what you'd expect, and didn't sway me much. I felt the same way about the Sony hacks. Trump not releasing his tax returns is suspicious, so if they were leaked and we found out that he indeed has less money than he claims, it wouldn't surprise me much and wouldn't sway my opinion much.
But most people don't think this way. They don't follow the Bayesian conservation of probability, where if you know a piece of information will contain bad news, you should update your estimates immediately. In this case, I think it has something to do with the fact that we like to think much more highly of people than they actually are, until faced with incontrovertible evidence. I can guess how bad my friend's internet searches are, but it would be deeply humiliating for them if this information were released.
This sounds like a pretty lame argument against freedom of information I guess. Who's to decide what information gets out? Still, I think it shows why privacy is also an important consideration.
Nothing is more dangerous than a little knowledge. There can be a lot of unpleasantness short of war, and a lot of actions that are just war by another name.