8 ms·

Countering “misinformation” by correct information is a far better approach than censorship. The logical fallacy of “censorship is okay when I know it’s wrong”

Countering “misinformation” by correct information is a far better approach than censorship. The logical fallacy of “censorship is okay when I know it’s wrong” sets such a dangerous precedent, yet it’s downright celebrated by America’s left. It’s quite frightening.

grandridge 8y ago
bingo
daeken 8y ago
The information is out there, and is being broadcast publicly. Shutting down misinformation is essential when people don't care about getting valid information.
minikites 8y ago
>Countering “misinformation” by correct information is a far better approach than censorship. The recent increase of people who believe the Earth is flat seems to be direct evidence against your claim. Scientific and information literacy is not a widespread skill.
- sathishmanohar 8y ago
  Does believing earth is flat makes the earth flat or vice versa? If it is truth, It'll prevail. Who is this new authority on worldwide truths that gets to decide what the masses consume.
  - minikites 8y ago
    >If it is truth, It'll prevail. If more people believe the Earth is flat today versus 20 years ago, the truth is not prevailing: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas-flat-earth-movement-appears-to-be-growing https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas...
  - baddox 8y ago
    > If it is truth, It'll prevail. How so, exactly? I don't see any reason to think that the truth tends to prevail, except in processes where people are genuinely interested in discovering the truth. In fact, if you're not interested in discovering the truth, I would say that the truth is mostly powerless.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      The only way truth won't prevail is if we censor discussion about it. An example of how the truth is stifled in China because you can't discuss an historical event. https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-03/how-china-has-censored-words-relating-tiananmen-square-anniversary https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-03/how-china-has-censore...
openasocket 8y ago
Is this really censorship, though? They aren't removing information, GoFundMe isn't a blogging site, they are simply refusing to do business with people they disagree with. That's more or less a boycott. Is boycotting something or someone censorship?
- notyourday 8y ago
  Deplatforming is a censorship with modern characteristics.
- zeropnc 8y ago
  It is in a world where monopolies are a thing.
astura 8y ago
The idea we can just correct people who have non-factual beliefs with facts and they say, "oh ok, guess I was wrong" and change their beliefs is plain wrong. It doesn't happen, it doesn't work that way. In fact, it has the opposite effect: the non-factual belief gets stronger. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ Anyway, GoFundMe isn't in the business of informing anyone about anything.
scriptkiddy 8y ago
Except, this isn't censoring. It's a private company refusing to let an individual or organization use it's service for fundraising for a cause they believe to be harmful.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  The government doesn't have to censor anything any more, the corporations do that for them now. This is how the future of censorship will work. And there won't be a legal protection against censorship because of this. But I agree, GoFundMe can legally block anything they want.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    It's not censorship, so it's not the future of censorship. They can block anything they want because that's what free speech means.
Johnny555 8y ago
Countering “misinformation” by correct information is a far better approach than censorship I'd like to see a reference for this -- there's plenty of evidence in favor of vaccinations out there from legitimate government and commercial sources, yet many anti-vaxxers dismiss those sources as "biased" or "in the pockets of big pharma", so it's not clear how presenting more of the information they already have access to will change anything. But I can see how presenting less anti-vax "data" would be beneficial to public health.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  >But I can see how presenting less anti-vax "data" would be beneficial to public health. How is it better to have _less_ "data" to base potentially life threatening choices on?
  - _underfl0w_ 8y ago
    I'd say the parent comment's use of quotes should obviate the fact that they're referring to FUD, not _factual_, _accurate_, or _logical_ data.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      There is real data that supports questioning vaccine safety. But even saying "vaccines _may_ not be safe" is considered "anti-vaxxer". What is the real FUD here?
      - Johnny555 8y ago
        Saying vaccines may not be safe doesn't make one an anti-vaxxer, your doctor will tell you that (and indeed, for some individuals they'll recommend against vaccination at all) -- but saying that vaccines in general are worse than the alternative (the return of serious diseases that have been nearly eradicated) does. No medical procedure is 100% safe - even if they injected you with sterile saline, that's not 100% safe. The risk of adverse effects from the measles vaccine is around one in a million doses. In comparison, you've got around a 1 in 8000 chance of dying in a car accident this year. There's a misconception that public health policy is about keeping you (or your child) healthy -- it's not, it's about promoting health across the entire population. Even if there's a tiny risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine to your child, it's outweighed by the global reduction in serious illness. It's a part of living in society -- you should not get to make medical decisions that are proven to cause serious problems for others just to eliminate a minuscule risk to yourself.
castis 8y ago
But its totally okay to assign attributes to a large group of diverse people you dont actually know based solely on your political beliefs.

grandridge 8y ago

bingo

daeken 8y ago

The information is out there, and is being broadcast publicly. Shutting down misinformation is essential when people don't care about getting valid information.

minikites 8y ago

>Countering “misinformation” by correct information is a far better approach than censorship. The recent increase of people who believe the Earth is flat seems to be direct evidence against your claim. Scientific and information literacy is not a widespread skill.

sathishmanohar 8y ago
Does believing earth is flat makes the earth flat or vice versa? If it is truth, It'll prevail. Who is this new authority on worldwide truths that gets to decide what the masses consume.
- minikites 8y ago
  >If it is truth, It'll prevail. If more people believe the Earth is flat today versus 20 years ago, the truth is not prevailing: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas-flat-earth-movement-appears-to-be-growing https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas...
- baddox 8y ago
  > If it is truth, It'll prevail. How so, exactly? I don't see any reason to think that the truth tends to prevail, except in processes where people are genuinely interested in discovering the truth. In fact, if you're not interested in discovering the truth, I would say that the truth is mostly powerless.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    The only way truth won't prevail is if we censor discussion about it. An example of how the truth is stifled in China because you can't discuss an historical event. https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-03/how-china-has-censored-words-relating-tiananmen-square-anniversary https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-03/how-china-has-censore...

openasocket 8y ago

Is this really censorship, though? They aren't removing information, GoFundMe isn't a blogging site, they are simply refusing to do business with people they disagree with. That's more or less a boycott. Is boycotting something or someone censorship?

notyourday 8y ago
Deplatforming is a censorship with modern characteristics.
zeropnc 8y ago
It is in a world where monopolies are a thing.

astura 8y ago

The idea we can just correct people who have non-factual beliefs with facts and they say, "oh ok, guess I was wrong" and change their beliefs is plain wrong. It doesn't happen, it doesn't work that way. In fact, it has the opposite effect: the non-factual belief gets stronger. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ Anyway, GoFundMe isn't in the business of informing anyone about anything.

scriptkiddy 8y ago

Except, this isn't censoring. It's a private company refusing to let an individual or organization use it's service for fundraising for a cause they believe to be harmful.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
The government doesn't have to censor anything any more, the corporations do that for them now. This is how the future of censorship will work. And there won't be a legal protection against censorship because of this. But I agree, GoFundMe can legally block anything they want.
- astrodust 8y ago
  It's not censorship, so it's not the future of censorship. They can block anything they want because that's what free speech means.

Johnny555 8y ago

Countering “misinformation” by correct information is a far better approach than censorship I'd like to see a reference for this -- there's plenty of evidence in favor of vaccinations out there from legitimate government and commercial sources, yet many anti-vaxxers dismiss those sources as "biased" or "in the pockets of big pharma", so it's not clear how presenting more of the information they already have access to will change anything. But I can see how presenting less anti-vax "data" would be beneficial to public health.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
>But I can see how presenting less anti-vax "data" would be beneficial to public health. How is it better to have _less_ "data" to base potentially life threatening choices on?
- _underfl0w_ 8y ago
  I'd say the parent comment's use of quotes should obviate the fact that they're referring to FUD, not _factual_, _accurate_, or _logical_ data.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    There is real data that supports questioning vaccine safety. But even saying "vaccines _may_ not be safe" is considered "anti-vaxxer". What is the real FUD here?
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      Saying vaccines may not be safe doesn't make one an anti-vaxxer, your doctor will tell you that (and indeed, for some individuals they'll recommend against vaccination at all) -- but saying that vaccines in general are worse than the alternative (the return of serious diseases that have been nearly eradicated) does. No medical procedure is 100% safe - even if they injected you with sterile saline, that's not 100% safe. The risk of adverse effects from the measles vaccine is around one in a million doses. In comparison, you've got around a 1 in 8000 chance of dying in a car accident this year. There's a misconception that public health policy is about keeping you (or your child) healthy -- it's not, it's about promoting health across the entire population. Even if there's a tiny risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine to your child, it's outweighed by the global reduction in serious illness. It's a part of living in society -- you should not get to make medical decisions that are proven to cause serious problems for others just to eliminate a minuscule risk to yourself.

castis 8y ago

But its totally okay to assign attributes to a large group of diverse people you dont actually know based solely on your political beliefs.