4 ms·

So, you are rejecting the premise that a lot of misinformation is spread and it has much wider reach than in the past? I would say it has, and I consider only

by yokaze 6y ago

So, you are rejecting the premise that a lot of misinformation is spread and it has much wider reach than in the past? I would say it has, and I consider only reasonable that there is a desire to understand the mechanisms behind it. I would consider the effects net negative. No need to a concerted effort.

ssambros 6y ago
> So, you are rejecting the premise that a lot of misinformation is spread and it has much wider reach than in the past? No, but how do we jump to conclusion that government, government-controlled or government-aligned entity should be allowed to control the information we receive?
- triceratops 6y ago
  Who jumped to that conclusion?
nprz 6y ago
I am rejecting that premise, yes. If you expect major news outlets to accurately report the truth, and believe we should only rely on their interpretation of reality, you are misled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mP2jN6bJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mP2jN6bJI
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  I do expect every major news outlet to do what they can to accurately report the truth and not present it in ways that distort reality. It doesn't mean that you should rely only on their interpretation, but it does mean that you can do things like trust the numbers they give. This way, you don't get reports that, "x helps you be healthier!" when the study is really just showing that x culture has better marks on something OR a mouse study was showing promise, without reminding folks that most mouse studies don't work for humans (or that some mice are bred to make studies easier). I suppose the more damaging rhetoric would be presenting information that makes immigrants seem like criminals, when really, the crime rate is lower and the examples were isolated incidents. I'd extend this to places that people expect as much truth as is reasonable - for example, vitamins and supplements. We know that "supports..." or "may reduce..." is taken as fact. Ideally, you'd get your news from more than one source and if one source is almost always different from the others, you'd no longer use it as fact - but people aren't going to go through this process all that often if at all.

by yokaze 6y ago

ssambros 6y ago

> So, you are rejecting the premise that a lot of misinformation is spread and it has much wider reach than in the past? No, but how do we jump to conclusion that government, government-controlled or government-aligned entity should be allowed to control the information we receive?

triceratops 6y ago
Who jumped to that conclusion?

nprz 6y ago

I am rejecting that premise, yes. If you expect major news outlets to accurately report the truth, and believe we should only rely on their interpretation of reality, you are misled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mP2jN6bJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mP2jN6bJI

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
I do expect every major news outlet to do what they can to accurately report the truth and not present it in ways that distort reality. It doesn't mean that you should rely only on their interpretation, but it does mean that you can do things like trust the numbers they give. This way, you don't get reports that, "x helps you be healthier!" when the study is really just showing that x culture has better marks on something OR a mouse study was showing promise, without reminding folks that most mouse studies don't work for humans (or that some mice are bred to make studies easier). I suppose the more damaging rhetoric would be presenting information that makes immigrants seem like criminals, when really, the crime rate is lower and the examples were isolated incidents. I'd extend this to places that people expect as much truth as is reasonable - for example, vitamins and supplements. We know that "supports..." or "may reduce..." is taken as fact. Ideally, you'd get your news from more than one source and if one source is almost always different from the others, you'd no longer use it as fact - but people aren't going to go through this process all that often if at all.