6 ms·

There's also the question of what is misinformation? You have a continuum from differences of opinion, to people being mistaken, to deliberate misinformation. W

There's also the question of what is misinformation? You have a continuum from differences of opinion, to people being mistaken, to deliberate misinformation. Where do you (reliably) draw the line? I can see why they wouldn't want them to be "arbiters of truth" -- I'm not sure I would want them to be either.

allenz 8y ago
I agree that it's a difficult social and political problem. Interestingly, companies are fine banning hate speech, for which the same can be said. There might be better solutions. One idea is to pay nonpartisan organizations to fact check viral posts. Another is to reduce the use of engagement as a metric, which tends to promote emotionally charged rather than factual content. For example, in January Facebook committed to prioritizing "meaningful social interactions".
optimuspaul 8y ago
I'm not sure there is a question about what it is. Misinformation is what it is, information that is wrong, it is false information. Peoples opinions cannot be misinformation, they are opinions. I do agree there is a gray area between people being mistaken and deliberate misinformation, but there is no need to draw a line there, both should be addressed. People should be corrected and misinformation should not be spread further.
- Bromskloss 8y ago
  Even someone's honest attempt at presenting the truth can be considered, by someone else, to be worded in a misleading way.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- baud147258 8y ago
  Misinformation can be true information, but presented in a way to mislead the reader.
- vinhboy 8y ago
  There is nothing more infuriating than watching educated left-leaning people twist themselves into a knot trying side step calling lies, lies, because they want to appear impartial. There are lots of people who will "question" endlessly the meaning of "misinformation". Trying to make exceptions for that .01% of the time a "gray area" can exist, while ignoring the real harm to society caused by the 99.99% "deliberate misinformation". I guarantee you, the responses to your comment will be exactly that. I would compare it to science-denial. Like people who refuse vaccines because of the tiny risks involved, while ignoring the outsized benefits. People who continuously debate the nuance of "what is" "misinformation", while ignoring the harm it does, is no better. And while one singular bit of misinformation may seem harmless, goofy, and opinionated, ie. Obama is a muslim, crowd size, "Uranium One" etc... A constantly stream of them practically creates an alternate reality for people who believes them, and that is extremely dangerous.
  - ringbugger 8y ago
    If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping". Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship. Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination. Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial. That said, it can be a problem in other parts of the world. So what should be the reference here? You aren't even able to develop a theory about the damage of misinformation that would withstand scientific scrutiny. Maybe only because of lacking data than there not being a correlation, but still. So in the end I would conclude you only want to censor things you do not like. If you are more certain about your point of view and are able to articulate it, maybe more people will believe you.
    - creato 8y ago
      > Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination. > Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial. For measles, the herd immunity threshold is 93-95% [1]. 1. http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/2._target_immunity_levels_FUNK.pdf http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/2...
olefoo 8y ago
Also things like, sarcasm, metaphor and weird twitter. Which by their very nature subvert and stretch the simple true/false dichotomy.
CM30 8y ago
The key part is probably the distinction between deliberate and accidental misinformation. Yes the latter can be problematic as well, but it would seem ridiculous to ban someone for simply making mistakes. Everyone does so, from professional journalists to average Joes on the street. Unfortunately, even if those pushing deliberate misinformation are banned, then the problem will keep going since others will spread the information because they mistakenly believe its true.
- stordoff 8y ago
  That's in a way a similar problem - how do you distinguish between deliberate and accidental (especially if you start banning deliberate misinformation, and deliberate misinformers start trying to make it look accidental)? You might be able to catch the more blatant examples (such as it being the only thing they tweet about and it being consistently wrong), but in general I'm not sure how you can look at a false message and decide if it was deliberate or a mistake. If you then decide to ban all misinformation (because false information is a problem even if it is a mistake), that goes back to the difficulty of deciding what is misinformation - people can cherry-pick true information in a way that gives a misleading impression, or if someone makes a statement that might be true, but there is no evidence for it, do you have to assume that it is false? I agree that there is a problem here, but I don't know that banning misinformation is the right way to solve it - there are too many gray areas, and it grants _a lot_ of power to social media companies to let them determine what is true.
masswerk 8y ago
The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.) The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group boundaries and the respective framework of shared world view. Social media will always reinforce such bias, it's part of the setup. Lastly, if we acknowledge that there's no way to identify an unbiased (positive) truth, it may be also hard to identify bias at all. It may be possible to identify misinformation which is spread arbitrarily as part of a broader strategy (then better called disinformation) but even then it may be hard to reach consensus. (Elefant in the room may be the UN presentation proceeding the last Golf War.)
- catawbasam 8y ago
  2+2=4 regardless of ideology.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    Other counterpoint: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-beautiful https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-beautiful
    - croon 8y ago
      That's not a counterpoint. That strip is countering a statement based on the flawed assumption that aliens would count using the same base-10 system most of us here use. Which really is the argument that falsehoods are [some portion of the time] rooted in wrong assumptions and premises. I would argue that this only strengthens the statement that facts exist. That some people (here on Earth) want to claim that 2+2=5 because they have invented their own number 2 (which they conveniently withhold), is precisely the kind of misinformation being discussed in the thread.
  - masswerk 8y ago
    However, Gödel… (Also: Let "x" = 1", "2" = "++x" and "4" = "2(++x)". Results may depend on your C implementation.)
jrs95 8y ago
And if what’s generally taken to be true actually fits the definition of misinformation, and other misinformation networks are created with the intent to combat that, is this really any different from how politics has always been? It seems we are exchanging a lot more bullshit now, but at least it can be more easily observed when it’s on the internet vs a physical medium. Right now I think the internet has generally made things worse, but it seems possible that we can raise the standard as time goes on. At least now I think a subset of highly interested people are able to more accurately determine what’s factual than anyone would have been able to just a couple decades ago.

allenz 8y ago

I agree that it's a difficult social and political problem. Interestingly, companies are fine banning hate speech, for which the same can be said. There might be better solutions. One idea is to pay nonpartisan organizations to fact check viral posts. Another is to reduce the use of engagement as a metric, which tends to promote emotionally charged rather than factual content. For example, in January Facebook committed to prioritizing "meaningful social interactions".

optimuspaul 8y ago

I'm not sure there is a question about what it is. Misinformation is what it is, information that is wrong, it is false information. Peoples opinions cannot be misinformation, they are opinions. I do agree there is a gray area between people being mistaken and deliberate misinformation, but there is no need to draw a line there, both should be addressed. People should be corrected and misinformation should not be spread further.

Bromskloss 8y ago
Even someone's honest attempt at presenting the truth can be considered, by someone else, to be worded in a misleading way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
baud147258 8y ago
Misinformation can be true information, but presented in a way to mislead the reader.
vinhboy 8y ago
There is nothing more infuriating than watching educated left-leaning people twist themselves into a knot trying side step calling lies, lies, because they want to appear impartial. There are lots of people who will "question" endlessly the meaning of "misinformation". Trying to make exceptions for that .01% of the time a "gray area" can exist, while ignoring the real harm to society caused by the 99.99% "deliberate misinformation". I guarantee you, the responses to your comment will be exactly that. I would compare it to science-denial. Like people who refuse vaccines because of the tiny risks involved, while ignoring the outsized benefits. People who continuously debate the nuance of "what is" "misinformation", while ignoring the harm it does, is no better. And while one singular bit of misinformation may seem harmless, goofy, and opinionated, ie. Obama is a muslim, crowd size, "Uranium One" etc... A constantly stream of them practically creates an alternate reality for people who believes them, and that is extremely dangerous.
- ringbugger 8y ago
  If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping". Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship. Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination. Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial. That said, it can be a problem in other parts of the world. So what should be the reference here? You aren't even able to develop a theory about the damage of misinformation that would withstand scientific scrutiny. Maybe only because of lacking data than there not being a correlation, but still. So in the end I would conclude you only want to censor things you do not like. If you are more certain about your point of view and are able to articulate it, maybe more people will believe you.
  - creato 8y ago
    > Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination. > Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial. For measles, the herd immunity threshold is 93-95% [1]. 1. http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/2._target_immunity_levels_FUNK.pdf http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/2...

olefoo 8y ago

Also things like, sarcasm, metaphor and weird twitter. Which by their very nature subvert and stretch the simple true/false dichotomy.

CM30 8y ago

The key part is probably the distinction between deliberate and accidental misinformation. Yes the latter can be problematic as well, but it would seem ridiculous to ban someone for simply making mistakes. Everyone does so, from professional journalists to average Joes on the street. Unfortunately, even if those pushing deliberate misinformation are banned, then the problem will keep going since others will spread the information because they mistakenly believe its true.

stordoff 8y ago
That's in a way a similar problem - how do you distinguish between deliberate and accidental (especially if you start banning deliberate misinformation, and deliberate misinformers start trying to make it look accidental)? You might be able to catch the more blatant examples (such as it being the only thing they tweet about and it being consistently wrong), but in general I'm not sure how you can look at a false message and decide if it was deliberate or a mistake. If you then decide to ban all misinformation (because false information is a problem even if it is a mistake), that goes back to the difficulty of deciding what is misinformation - people can cherry-pick true information in a way that gives a misleading impression, or if someone makes a statement that might be true, but there is no evidence for it, do you have to assume that it is false? I agree that there is a problem here, but I don't know that banning misinformation is the right way to solve it - there are too many gray areas, and it grants _a lot_ of power to social media companies to let them determine what is true.

masswerk 8y ago

The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.) The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group boundaries and the respective framework of shared world view. Social media will always reinforce such bias, it's part of the setup. Lastly, if we acknowledge that there's no way to identify an unbiased (positive) truth, it may be also hard to identify bias at all. It may be possible to identify misinformation which is spread arbitrarily as part of a broader strategy (then better called disinformation) but even then it may be hard to reach consensus. (Elefant in the room may be the UN presentation proceeding the last Golf War.)

catawbasam 8y ago
2+2=4 regardless of ideology.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Other counterpoint: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-beautiful https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-beautiful
  - croon 8y ago
    That's not a counterpoint. That strip is countering a statement based on the flawed assumption that aliens would count using the same base-10 system most of us here use. Which really is the argument that falsehoods are [some portion of the time] rooted in wrong assumptions and premises. I would argue that this only strengthens the statement that facts exist. That some people (here on Earth) want to claim that 2+2=5 because they have invented their own number 2 (which they conveniently withhold), is precisely the kind of misinformation being discussed in the thread.
- masswerk 8y ago
  However, Gödel… (Also: Let "x" = 1", "2" = "++x" and "4" = "2(++x)". Results may depend on your C implementation.)

jrs95 8y ago

And if what’s generally taken to be true actually fits the definition of misinformation, and other misinformation networks are created with the intent to combat that, is this really any different from how politics has always been? It seems we are exchanging a lot more bullshit now, but at least it can be more easily observed when it’s on the internet vs a physical medium. Right now I think the internet has generally made things worse, but it seems possible that we can raise the standard as time goes on. At least now I think a subset of highly interested people are able to more accurately determine what’s factual than anyone would have been able to just a couple decades ago.