6 ms·

If people are unknowingly being manipulated how do you know you aren't being manipulated also? There are plenty of examples of manipulative and fake news coming

If people are unknowingly being manipulated how do you know you aren't being manipulated also? There are plenty of examples of manipulative and fake news coming from both traditional and alternative media.

onethought 6y ago
I may be in various ways. But that isn’t a counter argument for stopping people being manipulated. Is your point: you could be exposed to misinformation as well so we shouldn’t stop misinformation? (If it is. That is absurd)
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  If everyone is being manipulated how do you stop misinformation in a fair manner? We can't even agree on what is information and what is misinformation. Surely you understand how stopping misinformation is bad if people can't agree on what it actually is, right?
  - onethought 6y ago
    There are some pretty easy non controversial ones. Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. I didn’t agree that everyone is being manipulated, nor did you show that. There is objective truth, that is the bar for misinformation.
    - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
      >Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. The details matter, but as a rule I disagree with this. Some facts are obvious, like pigs not growing on trees, but others aren't, like climate change. Science has been corrupted for decades and I don't believe it to be a proper arbiter of truth in certain areas, particularly ones that can't be tested against reality easily, such as climate change. You probably disagree with me, which makes my "bar for misinformation" different than yours. And I'm guessing that we won't be able to bridge that gap through reason and logic.
      - onethought 6y ago
        You seem pretty fine with accepting the corrupt science to deliver your message over the internet it invented. You are right, we won’t agree, because you haven’t got a point. What you first replied to and where you’re at now are unrelated positions. This is a classic “bring them to your level and beat them with experience” situation. You’ve moved the goal posts to climate change now. I’m not taking up that fight. You’ve basically just said: reason and logic have been corrupted, so we can’t agree in mere reason and logic. You’ll find your position doesn’t take you anywhere nice. But I appreciate the discussion we’ve had up to this point.
        adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        >People are being (unknowingly) manipulated and the sheer quantity of misinformation is being mistaken for evidence of truth. This is something you said that I originally replied to. We don't agree on what constitutes truth, so we can't have a reasonable conversation, and we also can't fairly judge what is and isn't misinformation, because we don't agree on the basics. This is the point I'm making. I don't believe that climate science is nearly as valid as everything that goes into making my computer work, because my computer works. I have evidence in the real world that my computer works, so all the physics that went into it must be pretty solid. I don't have evidence that climate science works, because climate scientists can't run their models 100 years into the future, see what happens, then change a variable and run it again to see what changes (with the same accuracy that you'd have if you ran the experiment in real life). Their models are fundamentally less powerful than anything that went into making my computer work by the very nature of the discipline. Most of politics falls way closer to climate science in terms of its power as a science than it does to the physics that goes into a computer. This, fundamentally, is why "truth" and "misinformation" when talking about politics is generally pointless. There are very few discussions in current day politics that are about truths as solid as what makes a computer work. Most of it are around fields like climate science, economics, social science, which are all softer (and thus more corruptible) fields. The reason I said we won't be able to have a reasonable and logical discussion about this is because you probably disagree with everything I just said, and you likely won't really change your mind about it. I certainly won't change my mind about it, so we're forever stuck not being able to reconcile our different views of the world in regards to the relationship between politics and science, and thus we'll never be able to reach 'ground truth' from which we could then work up towards stopping the spread of misinformation. A general notion of truth itself has to be agreed upon before we can have reasonable and logical discussions about this subject, but that likely won't happen.

onethought 6y ago

I may be in various ways. But that isn’t a counter argument for stopping people being manipulated. Is your point: you could be exposed to misinformation as well so we shouldn’t stop misinformation? (If it is. That is absurd)

adnzzzzZ 6y ago
If everyone is being manipulated how do you stop misinformation in a fair manner? We can't even agree on what is information and what is misinformation. Surely you understand how stopping misinformation is bad if people can't agree on what it actually is, right?
- onethought 6y ago
  There are some pretty easy non controversial ones. Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. I didn’t agree that everyone is being manipulated, nor did you show that. There is objective truth, that is the bar for misinformation.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    >Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. The details matter, but as a rule I disagree with this. Some facts are obvious, like pigs not growing on trees, but others aren't, like climate change. Science has been corrupted for decades and I don't believe it to be a proper arbiter of truth in certain areas, particularly ones that can't be tested against reality easily, such as climate change. You probably disagree with me, which makes my "bar for misinformation" different than yours. And I'm guessing that we won't be able to bridge that gap through reason and logic.
    - onethought 6y ago
      You seem pretty fine with accepting the corrupt science to deliver your message over the internet it invented. You are right, we won’t agree, because you haven’t got a point. What you first replied to and where you’re at now are unrelated positions. This is a classic “bring them to your level and beat them with experience” situation. You’ve moved the goal posts to climate change now. I’m not taking up that fight. You’ve basically just said: reason and logic have been corrupted, so we can’t agree in mere reason and logic. You’ll find your position doesn’t take you anywhere nice. But I appreciate the discussion we’ve had up to this point.
      - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        >People are being (unknowingly) manipulated and the sheer quantity of misinformation is being mistaken for evidence of truth. This is something you said that I originally replied to. We don't agree on what constitutes truth, so we can't have a reasonable conversation, and we also can't fairly judge what is and isn't misinformation, because we don't agree on the basics. This is the point I'm making. I don't believe that climate science is nearly as valid as everything that goes into making my computer work, because my computer works. I have evidence in the real world that my computer works, so all the physics that went into it must be pretty solid. I don't have evidence that climate science works, because climate scientists can't run their models 100 years into the future, see what happens, then change a variable and run it again to see what changes (with the same accuracy that you'd have if you ran the experiment in real life). Their models are fundamentally less powerful than anything that went into making my computer work by the very nature of the discipline. Most of politics falls way closer to climate science in terms of its power as a science than it does to the physics that goes into a computer. This, fundamentally, is why "truth" and "misinformation" when talking about politics is generally pointless. There are very few discussions in current day politics that are about truths as solid as what makes a computer work. Most of it are around fields like climate science, economics, social science, which are all softer (and thus more corruptible) fields. The reason I said we won't be able to have a reasonable and logical discussion about this is because you probably disagree with everything I just said, and you likely won't really change your mind about it. I certainly won't change my mind about it, so we're forever stuck not being able to reconcile our different views of the world in regards to the relationship between politics and science, and thus we'll never be able to reach 'ground truth' from which we could then work up towards stopping the spread of misinformation. A general notion of truth itself has to be agreed upon before we can have reasonable and logical discussions about this subject, but that likely won't happen.