6 ms·

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

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...
  - ringbugger 8y ago
    That might be true. I should have added that protection rates are rising. Even with legislation, you wouldn't achieve a 100% protection rate. You can also verify the insignificance of this discussion if you look at the victims of measels. You can always argue that one is one too many and I would agree. But I disagree about the means in case of doubt. But all that is off topic.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Earlier today I saw a thread of tweets criticizing a media figure for promoting the claim that Chelsea Clinton is married to a nephew of George Soros. This is a relatively easy claim to check; the identity of Chelsea Clinton's husband is not a secret, and Soros' family tree is also known. Her husband is not, in fact, a nephew of George Soros. Do you believe it is correct, then, to identify a tweet claiming "Chelsea Clinton is married to George Soros' nephew" as "misinformation"? Or would you, in a sense of charitable benevolence to the shifting nature of truth, want to hold off, just in case tomorrow she wakes up, decides she's unhappy, and files for divorce so that she can actually go marry a Soros nephew?
  - ringbugger 8y ago
    I love this. Taking a politically charged topic and trying to prove something irrefutably false while trying to make a completely different point. Yes, of course that is misinformation. Let's try it more neutral. Water is an aggregate state of carbon dioxide. Is this misinformation? Yes. Do I want social networks to be chemical teachers? No.
sidr 8y ago
> 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". The .01% is enough of a basis for a lawsuit. And grandstanding by the right claiming the company is biased (never mind that almost all "misinformation" is right leaning, so it's likely the .01% false positives are also likely right leaning). I would absolutely not want to be taking on such risks from a business perspective. If it's societal good we're aiming for, let society (elected officials) figure out how best to achieve that. Do you really trust for-profit organizations to not have their "editors" swayed by customers?

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...
- ringbugger 8y ago
  That might be true. I should have added that protection rates are rising. Even with legislation, you wouldn't achieve a 100% protection rate. You can also verify the insignificance of this discussion if you look at the victims of measels. You can always argue that one is one too many and I would agree. But I disagree about the means in case of doubt. But all that is off topic.
ubernostrum 8y ago
Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Earlier today I saw a thread of tweets criticizing a media figure for promoting the claim that Chelsea Clinton is married to a nephew of George Soros. This is a relatively easy claim to check; the identity of Chelsea Clinton's husband is not a secret, and Soros' family tree is also known. Her husband is not, in fact, a nephew of George Soros. Do you believe it is correct, then, to identify a tweet claiming "Chelsea Clinton is married to George Soros' nephew" as "misinformation"? Or would you, in a sense of charitable benevolence to the shifting nature of truth, want to hold off, just in case tomorrow she wakes up, decides she's unhappy, and files for divorce so that she can actually go marry a Soros nephew?
- ringbugger 8y ago
  I love this. Taking a politically charged topic and trying to prove something irrefutably false while trying to make a completely different point. Yes, of course that is misinformation. Let's try it more neutral. Water is an aggregate state of carbon dioxide. Is this misinformation? Yes. Do I want social networks to be chemical teachers? No.

sidr 8y ago

> 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". The .01% is enough of a basis for a lawsuit. And grandstanding by the right claiming the company is biased (never mind that almost all "misinformation" is right leaning, so it's likely the .01% false positives are also likely right leaning). I would absolutely not want to be taking on such risks from a business perspective. If it's societal good we're aiming for, let society (elected officials) figure out how best to achieve that. Do you really trust for-profit organizations to not have their "editors" swayed by customers?