4 ms·
Unfortunately if we follow that logic we would be out believing in the content of things like the Panama Papers, the Snowden Documents or the DNC hacks. In thi
by jwtadvice 10y ago
Unfortunately if we follow that logic we would be out believing in the content of things like the Panama Papers, the Snowden Documents or the DNC hacks.
In this world of state disinformation programmes (US, Russia and others) we need these leaks AND we need journalists and civilians to take them seriously; looking to establish second sources to corroborate information.
- tptacek 10y agoI don't understand. Do you dispute the logic, or just worry about where it leads? I read your comment and rebutted it, but your response doesn't feel like a rebuttal.
- jwtadvice 10y agoI would call it deeply incomplete, selectively applied logic. Also I am a different commenter than the one that you responded to (I'm not the guy from your internet argument).
- tptacek 10y agoIf you think the logic is faulty, could you actually rebut it with some specificity?
- jwtadvice 10y agoSure. I think the logic is faulty because it is very specific about implying what sources to trust/not to trust - without motivating that trust/lack of trust on a logical basis. As such the argument is open to selective application, whereby the party applying the logic decides a priori the result based on their biases about the trustworthiness of the source (and therefore the truthiness of the leaked documents). In this case - in the domain of information warfare - hacks and leaks implicating US officials in foul activity (global surveillance, propaganda programming, election flipping, regime change, torture programs, corruption in election systems) ought not be questioned a priori less or more than leaks implicating non-US officials in foul activity (tax avoidance, e.g. Panama Papers; arming proxy groups that in turn cause accidental casualties, e.g. MH17). Not fully stipulating - in a consistent, logical and sound format - a formal criteria for a comprehensive system to establish and evaluate a priori source trust leaves your logic wholly incomplete, unable to grapple with real world issues of information consumption and investigative reporting. Resulting in what I had said: deeply incomplete, selectively applied logic.
- grandalf 10y agoThis is a really interesting comment and approach to reasoning about information warfare. I'm curious if you have any reading recommendations or if you would care to share more thoughts on the subject.
- vintermann 10y agoThe logic can be used to justify scepticism, but not categorical dismissal as you seem to want.