经济与社会科学2018papers.ssrn.com
对民主的共同知识攻击（Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy）
Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy
进阶 · 约 40 分钟读完前置知识：信息战与宣传、民主制度基础、共同知识概念
导读
Bruce Schneier 与 Henry Farrell 的这篇论文提出，民主制度的运转依赖"共同知识"——即大家不仅知道某件事，还知道别人也知道、并知道别人知道自己知道。信息战（虚假信息、水军、钓鱼式挑动）攻击的正是这种共同知识的基础，让公众对"什么是公认事实"失去共识，从而以低成本侵蚀民主制度的合法性。论文认为这种攻击是不对称的：信息高度集中的威权体制反而更难被这类手段击穿。
HN 关注点：Bruce Schneier 跨界讨论政治信息战，以及"民主为何在认知层面脆弱、技术从业者该不该负责"这一话题。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 2 补充 2
补充唯一可行的对策是媒介素养教育，而非授权政府反制，因为后者有滥权风险。
抵御用影响力行动污染公共空间的唯一有效办法，是认真教会人们批判性地消费信息。为什么？因为你一旦授权政府去反制信息战，就等于给了它滥用权力的机会。我儿子所在的初中似乎在某种程度上已经在做这件事：教学生（a）不接受没有多个来源佐证"事实"；（b）思考所读信息的讲述者的立场与偏见；（c）明白大多数信息本质上都是在说服你。
rrggrr查看英文原文
The only counter-measure that works against polluting the polity with influence operations is earnestly educating people to be critical consumers of information. Why? Because one cannot empower government to counter-message influence operations without risking an abuse of power. My son's middle school appears to be tackling this problem to some degree by teaching students to: (a) not accept 'facts' without multiple sources of information; (b) consider the perspective/bias of the story-teller in the sources you consume; and (c) understand that most messages are persuasion.
支持技术社区应像曼哈顿计划的科学家那样，承认自己对自己造出的技术负有责任。
我很高兴像 Schneier 这样有声望、有能力的人愿意认真对待这个问题，至少合写了一篇论文。我知道这个论坛关注技术新闻和黑客感兴趣的东西，也见过越政治化的话题讨论越容易变得有毒、无建设性。但我强烈感到，作为设计并实现了这些深刻影响当今公共话语与政治的技术的群体，社区回避讨论、不肯承认自己的责任，令人失望。就连曼哈顿计划的科学家也对核武器表达了某种责任感和悔意。
tareqak查看英文原文
I'm glad that someone of Schneier's reputation and ability is taking this issue seriously enough to at least co-author a paper on it. I know that the focus of this forum is technology news and whatever hackers find interesting, and I know (and have seen here) that the more political a particular post is, the more inevitable it becomes for the discourse to devolve into something non-constructive and toxic. At the same time, I strongly feel that as part of the community people who have designed and implemented the technologies that have had such an major impact on civil discourse and politics today, I find the reluctance to discuss and own up to the fact disappointing. Even the scientists behind the Manhattan Project felt and expressed some responsibility and remorse for the nuclear weapons that came about from their work.
补充类比 FCPA 的财务记录要求，作者设想强制新闻机构说真话，并自我存疑地征求意见。
读到 8 天前这里贴的《水门事件的后半段更大、更糟，却被公众遗忘》时，我想到一个点子。《反海外腐败法》(FCPA) 的第一部分要求企业保存准确的财务记录，从而无法藏匿贿赂。如果一家公司可以被强制要求在财务记录中说真话，那为什么不能强制新闻机构在自称传播新闻时说真话？如果它仍想发布不准确的内容，可以标注为讽刺作品，但至少要放弃"真实"的表象。我明白这会涉及言论自由/第一修正案的争议，但公开的财务记录不也是一种言论吗？企业其实也是被规定该如何说自己想说的话（要说真话）。我这个想法连我自己都觉得有点牵强，但欢迎任何意见、补充或批评。
tareqak查看英文原文
There was one idea that came to mind when I read The Second Half of Watergate Was Bigger, Worse, and Forgotten by the Public posted here 8 days ago [0][1]. The first part of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) requires corporations to keep accurate financial records in order to not be able to hide bribes [2]. If a corporation can be compelled to be truthful in their financial records, then why can't a news organization be compelled to be truthful when proclaiming to disseminate news? If the news organization still wanted to publish something inaccurate, then they could label it as satire, but at least they would have surrender the appearance of being truthful. I understand that there would be freedom-of-speech / first amendment implications, but isn't a public financial record a kind of speech and corporations are effectively being told how to say (be truthful) what they want to say (their finances)? My idea definitely sounds a little far-fetched even to me, but I'd appreciate any input, additions, or criticism that anyone might have. [0] https://longreads.com/2018/11/20/the-second-half-of-watergate-was-bigger-worse-and-forgotten-by-the-public/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18498796 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
支持信息审查体制反而对信息战免疫，这可能让威权模式更具竞争力。
是啊，我一直有类似看法。比如中国就特别不容易受这类攻击影响。因为国家本来就掌管信息审查，想用假信息把它淹没要难得多。这也是我担心未来几年中国式模式会比预想中更兴盛的原因之一。
darawk查看英文原文
Ya, i've been saying something like this for a while. China, for instance, is uniquely invulnerable to this sort of attack. Because the state is already in charge of censoring information, it is much more difficult to flood them with misinformation. It's one of the many reasons i'm concerned that models like Chinas will actually flourish more than they otherwise would in the coming years.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2018Hacker News 讨论帖207 分 · 133 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选