6 ms·

> Its an issue of disinformation, not stupidity, that's leading people down the wrong path... You're wrong. The difficulty has always been that the most pervas

by ajxs 6y ago

> Its an issue of disinformation, not stupidity, that's leading people down the wrong path... You're wrong. The difficulty has always been that the most pervasive so-called 'misinformation' is usually fairly plausible, difficult to validate, or simply matters of opinion or interpretation. The notion that Obama is a Muslim strains credulity, and it's not a widely held belief. What about more complex information, such as religious or political texts? These are even more difficult to validate and cause much more harm. Maybe we should just outright ban the communist manifesto? That seems to have caused a large amount of social harm and could be fairly readily classified as 'disinformation'. What about the Christian bible? The Koran? They're full of difficult to validate claims. > What is your plan to deal with the disinformation here? What disinformation? The information you don't like, or the information I don't like? > We're not in an Orwellian fantasy, we're in an all-out information-war... > Several groups have learned how to weaponize information for their own gain... The fact that you seem to see that information has been weaponised, but can't seem to see that big-tech's censorship is pursuant to their own political aspirations is alarming. Are you legitimately this biased, or just being disingenuous?

dragontamer 6y ago
> The notion that Obama is a Muslim strains credulity, and it's not a widely held belief. Its a held belief in my family. My very mother, my uncles, and more. Whether or not it is "widely held" has little-to-no bearing on the seriousness I take it. Since my mother believes in it, I will take the alternative fact seriously. > What disinformation? The information you don't like, or the information I don't like? Disinformation like: Obama is a Muslim (or Obama was born in Kenya). Surely you can agree with me that such a fact running across political discussions is unhelpful. > but can't seem to see that big-tech's censorship is pursuant to their own political aspirations is alarming I'm prioritizing issues. I see misinformation / alternative facts to be a bigger problem than big-tech's censorship. As such, I'll stand in support of big-tech's moves here, if it helps the misinformation problem.
- ajxs 6y ago
  Did you read anything in my post? What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election? The Meueller report was unable to prove collusion. What if big-tech suddenly banned any claims to the contrary on the grounds that it constituted 'misinformation'? Would you call that censorship then?
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election? And no one in my family believes that. Myself included (though I wish the Muller report were written with stronger language to clarify itself: its conclusion had extremely weak wording). I talk about the misinformation that I can see personally and in my social circle. Fortunately, none of my family members are getting sucked into Q or some of the more dangerous stuff... but the misinformation across the spectrum online destroys discussion as a whole. Far more than "censorship" of posts by Twitter or whoever. After all, I don't do Facebook. I honestly don't care about it: I'm practically "self-censored" from Facebook because I don't use it at all. What I do care about is the misinformation my family is getting from it. --------- I mean, it seems clear to me that you are a user of Facebook, and you seem to agree with me that misinformation is running rampant? I'm blind to it, since I don't read Facebook at all. I can only tell you what has come through my Mother and Sister's mouths in my discussions with them. But as far as I can tell, you're just confirming my point: that there's a huge amount of misinformation here. And I applaud Facebook's announcement that they're fighting against it.
    - ajxs 6y ago
      > I mean, it seems clear to me that you are a user of Facebook, and you seem to agree with me that misinformation is running rampant? No, I don't use Facebook. I haven't for a long time. While I agree that there is propagation of misinformation happening on the platform, that's not my main concern. My main concern is that Facebook, and other platforms, will use their framework for 'removing misinformation' as a tool for censorship in the pursuit of their political agendas. My chief contention is that this poses a larger risk to society than the propagation of misinformation in the first place.
darthrupert 6y ago
Disinformation most empathically is not information that you or I dislike. You’re muddying the waters by claiming such absurdities. Claims like that have become commonplace, but so much more they need to be fought.

by ajxs 6y ago

dragontamer 6y ago

> The notion that Obama is a Muslim strains credulity, and it's not a widely held belief. Its a held belief in my family. My very mother, my uncles, and more. Whether or not it is "widely held" has little-to-no bearing on the seriousness I take it. Since my mother believes in it, I will take the alternative fact seriously. > What disinformation? The information you don't like, or the information I don't like? Disinformation like: Obama is a Muslim (or Obama was born in Kenya). Surely you can agree with me that such a fact running across political discussions is unhelpful. > but can't seem to see that big-tech's censorship is pursuant to their own political aspirations is alarming I'm prioritizing issues. I see misinformation / alternative facts to be a bigger problem than big-tech's censorship. As such, I'll stand in support of big-tech's moves here, if it helps the misinformation problem.

ajxs 6y ago
Did you read anything in my post? What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election? The Meueller report was unable to prove collusion. What if big-tech suddenly banned any claims to the contrary on the grounds that it constituted 'misinformation'? Would you call that censorship then?
- dragontamer 6y ago
  > What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election? And no one in my family believes that. Myself included (though I wish the Muller report were written with stronger language to clarify itself: its conclusion had extremely weak wording). I talk about the misinformation that I can see personally and in my social circle. Fortunately, none of my family members are getting sucked into Q or some of the more dangerous stuff... but the misinformation across the spectrum online destroys discussion as a whole. Far more than "censorship" of posts by Twitter or whoever. After all, I don't do Facebook. I honestly don't care about it: I'm practically "self-censored" from Facebook because I don't use it at all. What I do care about is the misinformation my family is getting from it. --------- I mean, it seems clear to me that you are a user of Facebook, and you seem to agree with me that misinformation is running rampant? I'm blind to it, since I don't read Facebook at all. I can only tell you what has come through my Mother and Sister's mouths in my discussions with them. But as far as I can tell, you're just confirming my point: that there's a huge amount of misinformation here. And I applaud Facebook's announcement that they're fighting against it.
  - ajxs 6y ago
    > I mean, it seems clear to me that you are a user of Facebook, and you seem to agree with me that misinformation is running rampant? No, I don't use Facebook. I haven't for a long time. While I agree that there is propagation of misinformation happening on the platform, that's not my main concern. My main concern is that Facebook, and other platforms, will use their framework for 'removing misinformation' as a tool for censorship in the pursuit of their political agendas. My chief contention is that this poses a larger risk to society than the propagation of misinformation in the first place.

darthrupert 6y ago

Disinformation most empathically is not information that you or I dislike. You’re muddying the waters by claiming such absurdities. Claims like that have become commonplace, but so much more they need to be fought.