3 ms·

There's a difference between a difference in ideology and spreading actual and dangerous misinformation. Whether or not spreading misinformation on the interne

There's a difference between a difference in ideology and spreading actual and dangerous misinformation. Whether or not spreading misinformation on the internet is justification for removing someone might be up for debate, but let's not pretend it was just because they disagreed with the "big tech" company that is wordpress.com

chrissnell 6y ago
The Conservative Treehouse is not a misinformation site. They are well-known for their meticulous and extensive research. What they say may be contrarian and unpopular, but it's not propaganda or a misinformation campaign.
- justinclift 6y ago
  Evidence otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25106430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25106430
zug_zug 6y ago
I'd be curious how uniformly they apply this policy. Is a website that promotes crystals to heal cancer going to be shutdown? Anti-vax? What about Jehovah's witnesses who don't allow blood transfusions? Honestly, as somebody on the left, I do feel like there are certain topics that people get unusually emotional about (e.g. terrorism, airplanes, covid) and tend make choices that aren't proportional to the measured risk, relative to say smoking.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > What about Jehovah's witnesses Usually the rule is that when it only affects the believer, it's ok. There are, however, sensible arguments against it based on the damage those beliefs cause to others, in special children of Jehovah's witnesses as individuals and the collective risk children deliberately not vaccinated going to schools and spreading disease to kids who can't be vaccinated (because of age or allergies or any other medical reason).
dcolkitt 6y ago
> dangerous misinformation. The idea of "dangerous misinformation" is an anti-liberal, anti-Enlightenment notion. Information is not dangerous, information is neutral. It's either right, in which case it's not misinformation. Or it's wrong, in which case it's not dangerous, because it can be refuted. The most dangerous thing is to suppress the free marketplace of ideas.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It’s often applied in problematic ways, but the basic concept seems pretty sound to me even from the most stringent Enlightenment assumptions. Every time someone treats their cancer with juice cleanses rather than chemotherapy, they’ve been harmed by dangerous misinformation. What to do about dangerous misinformation is of course another question entirely, but the idea that there’s no such thing ignores important challenges.

chrissnell 6y ago

The Conservative Treehouse is not a misinformation site. They are well-known for their meticulous and extensive research. What they say may be contrarian and unpopular, but it's not propaganda or a misinformation campaign.

justinclift 6y ago
Evidence otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25106430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25106430

zug_zug 6y ago

I'd be curious how uniformly they apply this policy. Is a website that promotes crystals to heal cancer going to be shutdown? Anti-vax? What about Jehovah's witnesses who don't allow blood transfusions? Honestly, as somebody on the left, I do feel like there are certain topics that people get unusually emotional about (e.g. terrorism, airplanes, covid) and tend make choices that aren't proportional to the measured risk, relative to say smoking.

rbanffy 6y ago
> What about Jehovah's witnesses Usually the rule is that when it only affects the believer, it's ok. There are, however, sensible arguments against it based on the damage those beliefs cause to others, in special children of Jehovah's witnesses as individuals and the collective risk children deliberately not vaccinated going to schools and spreading disease to kids who can't be vaccinated (because of age or allergies or any other medical reason).

dcolkitt 6y ago

> dangerous misinformation. The idea of "dangerous misinformation" is an anti-liberal, anti-Enlightenment notion. Information is not dangerous, information is neutral. It's either right, in which case it's not misinformation. Or it's wrong, in which case it's not dangerous, because it can be refuted. The most dangerous thing is to suppress the free marketplace of ideas.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It’s often applied in problematic ways, but the basic concept seems pretty sound to me even from the most stringent Enlightenment assumptions. Every time someone treats their cancer with juice cleanses rather than chemotherapy, they’ve been harmed by dangerous misinformation. What to do about dangerous misinformation is of course another question entirely, but the idea that there’s no such thing ignores important challenges.