4 ms·

"Weaponized information" can mean everything from partisan hyperbole to observations that don't mesh with one's biases. Addicts everywhere repeat the phrase, "

"Weaponized information" can mean everything from partisan hyperbole to observations that don't mesh with one's biases. Addicts everywhere repeat the phrase, "this time is different". What makes it special pleading is the lack of evidence or even a reasoned argument supporting this assertion.

DangitBobby 6y ago
Kinda just seems like you haven't been listening.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  You are cordially invited to qualify why "this time is different" and how speech or as you put it "weaponized misinformation", is equivalent to violence. Defend the assertion with a reasoned argument. Otherwise, it is simply special pleading.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    Well I will not pretend that I am the one to make a good case for it. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to debate you about it. I never said it was equivalent to violence. However, if it leads to violence, speech is absolutely dangerous. See murder cases where people are convinced to kill others under false pretenses. Or they are just talked into doing it by a charismatic individual. This sort of speech is actually already illegal. I'm sure it's not difficult for you to imagine speech that leads slightly indirectly to violence. That isn't necessarily the type of speech we are discussing here, I just thought I'd point out the extreme case where we already acknowledge the power of speech. As you have heard said and I'm sure will disagree with, the internet has lowered the bar to attaining a widespread audience. It used to be that you would have to be eloquent enough and thoughtful enough to throw your ideas into a coherent book, show, essay, or whatever. And there would be people vetting your material for quality before deciding it should go before an audience. Obviously, that doesn't stop all the bullshit (and actually leads to other bullshit), but having a higher barrier to information exchange meant that content was much more likely to vetted by one or more people who had some critical thinking skills. As a publisher, you couldn't just put out anything because it would cost you something. Now, any half baked idea you have you can put it out there, and similarly minded people who maybe formed the same sorts of half baked ideas or are just incapable of vetting the truth for themselves can find each other and form large groups of people who all now believe the same bullshit. This was always possible with word of mouth, but the internet is a much more effective medium for bullshit and allows it to be much more viral and widespread in nature. The vast majority of widely available "information" out there is no longer authored by experts, thanks to the internet. It's authored by people who mistake their layperson knowledge as expert knowledge, or believe that their "common sense" is enough to tell them how the world works. The audience can now choose what "information" to consume and doesn't have to believe the unpleasant things experts say or the understand the complicated stuff if they don't want to. They can just pick and choose whatever simple or comfortable truths they desire. As for evidence, most hard social and political problems are impossible to agree on. That problem is exacerbated by the type of misinformation we're talking about here, because it's even harder to agree on what the facts are. For example, somehow we are still arguing about global warming despite mountains of evidence. The the same thing happened with smoking and lung cancer. I don't have any evidence to share with you, but I'm sure that if I did you'd find a way to dismiss it with your own. I'm confident that you have heard similar reasoning before.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      The bar has been lowered for entry. The bar has continued to lower throughout history. To advance this point, you would need to establish a demarcation point where "this time is different". Above you suggest that credentialed gatekeepers somehow did a better job of protecting the public from misinformation which results in dangerous violence. A cursory examination of history debunks this. The Pulitzer prize (a coveted credential) is named for the originator of "yellow journalism". Half truths, mistruths and outright fabrications have always been with us. Look no further than the media's uncritical promotion of Iraqi WMD as a prelude to war. Experts were trotted out to tell us that Saddam had yellow cake etc. Hans Blix was silenced. If communication can be equated to violence, then the sources of record trumpeting false justifications for war must be the most dangerous and violent of them all. Yet, these are the gatekeepers you suggest are more responsible and accountable. There has been no accountability for this propaganda. Many would suggest that the same methods continue today. Youtube's censorship is a natural continuation of establishment gatekeeping. A cynic might even suggest that gatekeeping is the purpose of walled gardens. More of the same, this time is not different. It fits perfectly with historical precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Hearst_in_San_Francisco,_Pulitzer_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Hearst_in_Sa... The appeal to experts and technocracy is a separate error worthy of another discussion.
      - DangitBobby 6y ago
        You argue that the scale of the problem does not make it different ("more of the same"). I disagree. I could not draw you a line in a gradient of white to black to demonstrate exactly where light-grey becomes dark-grey. That does not mean that there is no distinction between the two hues or that it cannot be demonstrated. Also, you keep talking about equating it to violence, which I never said.

DangitBobby 6y ago

Kinda just seems like you haven't been listening.

aww_dang 6y ago
You are cordially invited to qualify why "this time is different" and how speech or as you put it "weaponized misinformation", is equivalent to violence. Defend the assertion with a reasoned argument. Otherwise, it is simply special pleading.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  Well I will not pretend that I am the one to make a good case for it. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to debate you about it. I never said it was equivalent to violence. However, if it leads to violence, speech is absolutely dangerous. See murder cases where people are convinced to kill others under false pretenses. Or they are just talked into doing it by a charismatic individual. This sort of speech is actually already illegal. I'm sure it's not difficult for you to imagine speech that leads slightly indirectly to violence. That isn't necessarily the type of speech we are discussing here, I just thought I'd point out the extreme case where we already acknowledge the power of speech. As you have heard said and I'm sure will disagree with, the internet has lowered the bar to attaining a widespread audience. It used to be that you would have to be eloquent enough and thoughtful enough to throw your ideas into a coherent book, show, essay, or whatever. And there would be people vetting your material for quality before deciding it should go before an audience. Obviously, that doesn't stop all the bullshit (and actually leads to other bullshit), but having a higher barrier to information exchange meant that content was much more likely to vetted by one or more people who had some critical thinking skills. As a publisher, you couldn't just put out anything because it would cost you something. Now, any half baked idea you have you can put it out there, and similarly minded people who maybe formed the same sorts of half baked ideas or are just incapable of vetting the truth for themselves can find each other and form large groups of people who all now believe the same bullshit. This was always possible with word of mouth, but the internet is a much more effective medium for bullshit and allows it to be much more viral and widespread in nature. The vast majority of widely available "information" out there is no longer authored by experts, thanks to the internet. It's authored by people who mistake their layperson knowledge as expert knowledge, or believe that their "common sense" is enough to tell them how the world works. The audience can now choose what "information" to consume and doesn't have to believe the unpleasant things experts say or the understand the complicated stuff if they don't want to. They can just pick and choose whatever simple or comfortable truths they desire. As for evidence, most hard social and political problems are impossible to agree on. That problem is exacerbated by the type of misinformation we're talking about here, because it's even harder to agree on what the facts are. For example, somehow we are still arguing about global warming despite mountains of evidence. The the same thing happened with smoking and lung cancer. I don't have any evidence to share with you, but I'm sure that if I did you'd find a way to dismiss it with your own. I'm confident that you have heard similar reasoning before.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    The bar has been lowered for entry. The bar has continued to lower throughout history. To advance this point, you would need to establish a demarcation point where "this time is different". Above you suggest that credentialed gatekeepers somehow did a better job of protecting the public from misinformation which results in dangerous violence. A cursory examination of history debunks this. The Pulitzer prize (a coveted credential) is named for the originator of "yellow journalism". Half truths, mistruths and outright fabrications have always been with us. Look no further than the media's uncritical promotion of Iraqi WMD as a prelude to war. Experts were trotted out to tell us that Saddam had yellow cake etc. Hans Blix was silenced. If communication can be equated to violence, then the sources of record trumpeting false justifications for war must be the most dangerous and violent of them all. Yet, these are the gatekeepers you suggest are more responsible and accountable. There has been no accountability for this propaganda. Many would suggest that the same methods continue today. Youtube's censorship is a natural continuation of establishment gatekeeping. A cynic might even suggest that gatekeeping is the purpose of walled gardens. More of the same, this time is not different. It fits perfectly with historical precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Hearst_in_San_Francisco,_Pulitzer_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Hearst_in_Sa... The appeal to experts and technocracy is a separate error worthy of another discussion.
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      You argue that the scale of the problem does not make it different ("more of the same"). I disagree. I could not draw you a line in a gradient of white to black to demonstrate exactly where light-grey becomes dark-grey. That does not mean that there is no distinction between the two hues or that it cannot be demonstrated. Also, you keep talking about equating it to violence, which I never said.