6 ms·

COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could

by kiba 7y ago

COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. I don't believe in fighting "bad ideas" by suppressing them, I believe in shining a light on them. Let the truth fight for itself. (And of course now comes the classic counter-argument: that the evils of disinformation possess a virality that makes them spread far more easily than the truth, being that truth is nuanced and difficult to acquire whereas bad information is seductively simple. I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking) Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? It is possible that platforms, being designed the way they are to maximize corporations' interest naturally lead to unintended consequences. There are billion of youtube video, nobody will be able to watch them all. So the youtube algorithm can recommend videos that are necessarily harmful based on what the person watched before.

CapitalistCartr 7y ago
"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well.
- untog 7y ago
  That isn’t an answer to the question the OP posed, though. And it’s an important question.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?
  - schoen 7y ago
    That's an example of a very bizarre view that seems to have almost no chance of being right and almost no evidence in its favor. And presumably many truths sounded weirder (less plausible) than that in past societies, and many truths are going to sound weirder than that in future societies. It's harder to say this because of the implied criticism of the common sense and rationality of people now living (including everyone in this conversation), but perhaps there are many truths that sound weirder than that to us, too.
  - TheUndead96 7y ago
    This is the exact type of escalation that is not helpful. This caricatures the argument that institutions are not perfect. In the beginning, the WHO said the virus could not be spread between people. And YouTube & friends are actively censoring to imperfect sources (since all sources are ultimately imperfect).
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      No, because the argument that "institutions are not perfect" is a strawman that distracts from the actual question which is "is anything David Icke says anything remotely approaching the truth?" and the answer is undeniably no. Arguing about a slippery slope that the institutions might not be perfect either doesn't matter. Icke isn't trying to be correct. He's either literally mentally unwell (I've read that he has schizophrenia) or he's intentionally being provocative, or both. This isn't even a case of YT removing someone who is acting in good faith. I've said it elsewhere and I'll repeat it here: the idea that institutions can be mistaken does not mean that we should remove things that are just clearly completely and totally false (and damaging). It's the difference between the idea that a large portion (say, 10-20%) of the population is infected with covid with no symptoms, which is also almost certainly wrong, but there's at least some level of evidence for. Almost all of that evidence is flawed, but like, you can cite real academic papers from people. And the idea that 5g causes covid, which doesn't even make enough sense to create a well founded argument to the contrary. It relies on the audience not understanding what a virus is (or wanting to suspend disbelief).
ryankemper 7y ago
> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. You missed my point :) Humans, being inherently limited, are always at risk of being wrong. Being wrong about things is the default state. I simply don't think that we should strive to expunge all forms of "misinformation". That is to say, of course people believe misinformation. > Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? Ah, I see my point is easily misinterpreted. I find it very plausible (in fact, I outright believe) that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes". Rather, I think the implications of using that fact to justify suppression is inherently dangerous. Furthermore I think truth, just like the concepts of agency and free will, are useful abstractions for us to operate under. But when examined in their totality, the concepts unravel. Thus I feel that truth is local, not global, and by acting like there is a global form of truth we are only forcing our local-truth onto others in the misguided belief that we can separate truth from our individualized local contexts. Coming back down to earth for a second, the problem always remains: "who decides what truth is"?
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit. And the Constitution decides that the truth is that the First Amendment doesn't apply to YouTube. That's an objective truth you seem to be unaware of.
  - ryankemper 7y ago
    I consider your statement to really be saying the following: "According to myself, YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit."
    - DonHopkins 7y ago
      That's right, because "Lizard People" are technically "Jews", so he's not actually ranting and raving about fictitious lizards, he's ranting and raving about Jews, so maybe he's not technically objectively full of shit because Jews really exist, huh? But maybe YouTube's lawyers advised them that the First Amendment doesn't apply to them because they're not Congress, so they booted him for anti-semitism, and inciting terrorism, and being a menace to public health, among other subjective but perfectly legal and valid and morally justifiable reasons.
knzhou 7y ago
> Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? It doesn't. That's precisely why Icke's ban is necessary: he was incredibly popular.
jfnixon 7y ago
"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" The existence of technology as well as science.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Science and technology is advanced by a tiny community of humans, relative to the species as a whole. I don't think it works as evidence for "more often", rather it is evidence for the amazing results that can come when the truth wins even within a small group.
  - jfnixon 7y ago
    The question was not "do you have evidence the truth wins more often than lies for the species as a whole"; there was no specific context implied as I read it. So, do you have evidence lies win more often than the truth for the species as a whole?
    - jshevek 7y ago
      >> Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? >The existence of technology as well as science. Simply put, the second statement is not evidence to satisfy the request in the first statement.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. Some people, after being given the opportunity to gamble, choose to place a bet, even when it has a negative expected value. Should Nevada ban blackjack? Some people, after being given the opportunity to buy insurance, choose to buy insurance, even when it has a negative expected value. Should we ban insurance? If not, what about credit default swaps? The reason central planning doesn't work is that everything is much too complicated for a central planner to be able to make good decisions about everything. People who are close to a thing know it better than people who are far away, so the decision is best left to the individual. It's their life, they're the one with the best incentive to get it right. > Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? Let us take this question to its logical conclusion and apply it to the censors. If the censors can't tell the truth from the lie then they may end up censoring the truth instead -- oops. But how are they any more qualified to decide this than anybody else? This is doubly true when you're talking about a platform. As if YouTube has "medical expertise" in its bailiwick. > It is possible that platforms, being designed the way they are to maximize corporations' interest naturally lead to unintended consequences. That is absolutely possible. But maybe then the answer is to design them differently rather than keeping the bad design while throwing hatchets at random civilians because somebody who themselves has no unique competence thinks they might be wrong about something.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  As an example of your point. At some point in the past the censors would have gotten the truth wrong on the cancer/smoking connection. Believe it or not, that began as a fringe belief.
colordrops 7y ago
Do you have evidence that censorship wins over lies? Considering that one of the most fundamental and important US laws is freedom of speech, it behooves you to prove that censorship works, not that free speech works.
- esoterica 7y ago
  The fact that the first amendment exists is strong evidence that censorship works. If it didn’t work, why is it so important to prevent the government from censoring people? After all, censorship is futile right?
  - colordrops 7y ago
    The question is who censorship "works" for. In most cases it works for despotic dictatorships.
    - pas 7y ago
      They too switched to misinformation, direct control of media, supression of independent media, etc. This kind of transparent content removal is not what dictatorships do.
      - someguyorother 7y ago
        It depends on how much control they have. You'll find no pro-free-market content on Kwangmyong.
        pas 7y ago
        You'll instead find the artisanal hand-crafted propaganda, and you won't find constructive criticism. Usually you'll find massive tomes of apologetics full of self-pity and victimization, and of course absolute hope that Dear Leader will still solve this even if the world is against him. Is there some kind of "list of prohibited books" in NK (like the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the 16th century)? I guess not, because anything that's not allowed is by default prohibited?

by kiba 7y ago

CapitalistCartr 7y ago

"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well.

untog 7y ago
That isn’t an answer to the question the OP posed, though. And it’s an important question.
joshuamorton 7y ago
Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?
- schoen 7y ago
  That's an example of a very bizarre view that seems to have almost no chance of being right and almost no evidence in its favor. And presumably many truths sounded weirder (less plausible) than that in past societies, and many truths are going to sound weirder than that in future societies. It's harder to say this because of the implied criticism of the common sense and rationality of people now living (including everyone in this conversation), but perhaps there are many truths that sound weirder than that to us, too.
- TheUndead96 7y ago
  This is the exact type of escalation that is not helpful. This caricatures the argument that institutions are not perfect. In the beginning, the WHO said the virus could not be spread between people. And YouTube & friends are actively censoring to imperfect sources (since all sources are ultimately imperfect).
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    No, because the argument that "institutions are not perfect" is a strawman that distracts from the actual question which is "is anything David Icke says anything remotely approaching the truth?" and the answer is undeniably no. Arguing about a slippery slope that the institutions might not be perfect either doesn't matter. Icke isn't trying to be correct. He's either literally mentally unwell (I've read that he has schizophrenia) or he's intentionally being provocative, or both. This isn't even a case of YT removing someone who is acting in good faith. I've said it elsewhere and I'll repeat it here: the idea that institutions can be mistaken does not mean that we should remove things that are just clearly completely and totally false (and damaging). It's the difference between the idea that a large portion (say, 10-20%) of the population is infected with covid with no symptoms, which is also almost certainly wrong, but there's at least some level of evidence for. Almost all of that evidence is flawed, but like, you can cite real academic papers from people. And the idea that 5g causes covid, which doesn't even make enough sense to create a well founded argument to the contrary. It relies on the audience not understanding what a virus is (or wanting to suspend disbelief).

ryankemper 7y ago

> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. You missed my point :) Humans, being inherently limited, are always at risk of being wrong. Being wrong about things is the default state. I simply don't think that we should strive to expunge all forms of "misinformation". That is to say, of course people believe misinformation. > Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? Ah, I see my point is easily misinterpreted. I find it very plausible (in fact, I outright believe) that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes". Rather, I think the implications of using that fact to justify suppression is inherently dangerous. Furthermore I think truth, just like the concepts of agency and free will, are useful abstractions for us to operate under. But when examined in their totality, the concepts unravel. Thus I feel that truth is local, not global, and by acting like there is a global form of truth we are only forcing our local-truth onto others in the misguided belief that we can separate truth from our individualized local contexts. Coming back down to earth for a second, the problem always remains: "who decides what truth is"?

DonHopkins 7y ago
YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit. And the Constitution decides that the truth is that the First Amendment doesn't apply to YouTube. That's an objective truth you seem to be unaware of.
- ryankemper 7y ago
  I consider your statement to really be saying the following: "According to myself, YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit."
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    That's right, because "Lizard People" are technically "Jews", so he's not actually ranting and raving about fictitious lizards, he's ranting and raving about Jews, so maybe he's not technically objectively full of shit because Jews really exist, huh? But maybe YouTube's lawyers advised them that the First Amendment doesn't apply to them because they're not Congress, so they booted him for anti-semitism, and inciting terrorism, and being a menace to public health, among other subjective but perfectly legal and valid and morally justifiable reasons.

knzhou 7y ago

> Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? It doesn't. That's precisely why Icke's ban is necessary: he was incredibly popular.

jfnixon 7y ago

"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" The existence of technology as well as science.

jshevek 7y ago
Science and technology is advanced by a tiny community of humans, relative to the species as a whole. I don't think it works as evidence for "more often", rather it is evidence for the amazing results that can come when the truth wins even within a small group.
- jfnixon 7y ago
  The question was not "do you have evidence the truth wins more often than lies for the species as a whole"; there was no specific context implied as I read it. So, do you have evidence lies win more often than the truth for the species as a whole?
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >> Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? >The existence of technology as well as science. Simply put, the second statement is not evidence to satisfy the request in the first statement.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. Some people, after being given the opportunity to gamble, choose to place a bet, even when it has a negative expected value. Should Nevada ban blackjack? Some people, after being given the opportunity to buy insurance, choose to buy insurance, even when it has a negative expected value. Should we ban insurance? If not, what about credit default swaps? The reason central planning doesn't work is that everything is much too complicated for a central planner to be able to make good decisions about everything. People who are close to a thing know it better than people who are far away, so the decision is best left to the individual. It's their life, they're the one with the best incentive to get it right. > Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies? Let us take this question to its logical conclusion and apply it to the censors. If the censors can't tell the truth from the lie then they may end up censoring the truth instead -- oops. But how are they any more qualified to decide this than anybody else? This is doubly true when you're talking about a platform. As if YouTube has "medical expertise" in its bailiwick. > It is possible that platforms, being designed the way they are to maximize corporations' interest naturally lead to unintended consequences. That is absolutely possible. But maybe then the answer is to design them differently rather than keeping the bad design while throwing hatchets at random civilians because somebody who themselves has no unique competence thinks they might be wrong about something.

mrfusion 7y ago
As an example of your point. At some point in the past the censors would have gotten the truth wrong on the cancer/smoking connection. Believe it or not, that began as a fringe belief.

colordrops 7y ago

Do you have evidence that censorship wins over lies? Considering that one of the most fundamental and important US laws is freedom of speech, it behooves you to prove that censorship works, not that free speech works.

esoterica 7y ago
The fact that the first amendment exists is strong evidence that censorship works. If it didn’t work, why is it so important to prevent the government from censoring people? After all, censorship is futile right?
- colordrops 7y ago
  The question is who censorship "works" for. In most cases it works for despotic dictatorships.
  - pas 7y ago
    They too switched to misinformation, direct control of media, supression of independent media, etc. This kind of transparent content removal is not what dictatorships do.
    - someguyorother 7y ago
      It depends on how much control they have. You'll find no pro-free-market content on Kwangmyong.
      - pas 7y ago
        You'll instead find the artisanal hand-crafted propaganda, and you won't find constructive criticism. Usually you'll find massive tomes of apologetics full of self-pity and victimization, and of course absolute hope that Dear Leader will still solve this even if the world is against him. Is there some kind of "list of prohibited books" in NK (like the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the 16th century)? I guess not, because anything that's not allowed is by default prohibited?