site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29300 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Elon Musk has suspended a slew of liberal journalists and pundits from Twitter. It is, as Benjamin Braddoc puts it, a red wedding for the liberal establishment. I initially believed that he was just the "controlled" opposition of the deep state, obviously he's stepped on way too many toes for that. This imo underscores an important truth to the ultra principled who believe in free speech absolutism and neutral institutions, the overton window won't shift the other way just to punish the "heretics" who've assailed this sacred virtue. Social media, our Frankenstein, has made it insanely easier for mob rule to influence culture (not that it wasn't already).

I still don't believe we're witnessing complete course reversal, but this could just be the first legitimate W for the right.

EDIT: It looks like he's lifting the suspension.

Some technical notes:

  • ADS-B Out is a newer signaling technique. Where conventional transponders provide data squawks with temporary identifiers in response to outside radar bursts, ADS-B Out constantly transmits with a relatively weak ISM-band transmission. The original intent and focus was anti-air-air-collision efforts, but it does also provide coverage where radar ground stations are impractical or ineffective, and does help for flight safety on cross-countries where people don't set up flight-following correctly. Among other things, it transmits aircraft identifier (usually tail-number), model, GPS location, (pressure!) altitude, and speed/vector. It was mandated (with some exceptions not relevant here) starting January 2020, which was an absolute mad scramble for general aviation.

  • ((A few other countries use different approaches: I know Australians have a weird cell phone setup. But for US/EU/Canada, it's the standard.))

  • Because the transmission is weak, it's fairly short-range, but easy to set up a private ground station. I've gotten ~40 miles in clear weather with a big directional antenna from a PiAware, but in practice expect closer to 10-20 miles. Professional ground stations are on a lot of cell phone towers and are rumored to sometimes get 80-120 miles (marketed for 250), though I dunno how much of that actually happens.

  • But there's a lot of agglomeration schema out there. FlightAware is the fancy user-friendly one, but FlightAware also allows people to delist their aircraft from the service (for a fee!). Others do not: ADS-B Exchange is the one being referenced here at length, and afaik doesn't remove flight records periods. It is an absolute pain to use the historical search tool, though.

  • In theory, you can talk with the FAA and join the Privacy ICAO Address program, which gives out a unique non-N-number ID you can use once a month. In practice, the program doesn't work: it requires physical modifications that are a pain, adds a lot of hassle with ATC at irregular intervals, complicates international flight (since it's a US-only program), and doesn't actually obscure the aircraft identifier if it's anything more unusual than a Cessna 152 (since it's not that hard to look for the closest aircraft model of the same type at a given airport).

  • So this is 'public' information, but it's public information in a really weird sense.

  • Bellingcat Discord claims to have found the location of the video Musk tweeted. I don't think these are strong ground markers, but I'm not going to bet my reputation against the sort of internet auties that do a lot of this OSI work. On the other hand, it's not hard to mix their claims and the ADS-B records from that night and make a pretty straightforward story (not accurate, but I'm not making it more accurate, and I'm not going to explain why it's slightly wrong), and the part where they don't seem to be doing so publicly suggests that they either don't have a good understanding of the logistics of private aviation, or they're not really interested in it.

  • In theory, you can talk with the FAA and join the Privacy ICAO Address program, which gives out a unique non-N-number ID you can use once a month. In practice, the program doesn't work: it requires physical modifications that are a pain, adds a lot of hassle with ATC at irregular intervals, complicates international flight (since it's a US-only program), and doesn't actually obscure the aircraft identifier if it's anything more unusual than a Cessna 152 (since it's not that hard to look for the closest aircraft model of the same type at a given airport).

This is exactly what Elon Musk did, however Jack Sweeney explicitly worked around it.

Yes, although it's not clear whether Musk's jet was using an ICAO Address at this time, or even in the last few months. ADS-B Exchange is listing the flights under its normal tail number, and while that could reflect individual reporters or ADS-B Exchange itself doing an automatic translation, the default software package doesn't, and that covers a really wide geographic range including international flights where it would be impractical (impossible?) to use PIA.

Now, even if he stopped using PIA, it's quite likely that's at least in part because of people like Sweeney puncturing the veil of privacy.

You know... I'm surprised by all this, and also not.

I currently work around the FAA LAANC program. And among the edicts to come down to LAANC providers over the last few years is an ever growing emphasis on protecting PII specifically, but data generally. Basically, nobody should ever be able to tell, through you, or the FAA, when any specific person flew a drone. You aren't supposed to keep data forever, users are supposed to be able to purge all their data, providers aren't supposed to share data, it's a whole thing. Privacy is a high concern, probably second only to safety.

So on the one hand, I'm shocked that the FAA is so absolutely shit at private flight data. On the other I'm not, because it's such a legacy application with decades of industry built up around the expectation that the data is public.

Yeah, I'd expect the FAA to be one of the last organizations to lead the charge for data privacy in the modern age, not out of any initiative against it, but simply because it's so peripheral to their job.

Musk's stated motivation for the bans claims that they all posted (or posted links to) ADS-B records, and that Musk had a significant change of heart on the matter after the car his toddler was in was tailed by an activist. I don't think it's a good policy for a few reasons, but understanding how these things work explains a lot of the details of the policy change.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats