5 ms·

100% false. your argument hinges on the assumption that you can tell the difference between disinformation ane dissent. this is the central problem. a tool for

100% false. your argument hinges on the assumption that you can tell the difference between disinformation ane dissent. this is the central problem. a tool for censorship is in no way tied to "truth" (whatever you pretend that means). censorship is for everything - disinformation AND dissent.

jacquesm 6y ago
> your argument hinges on the assumption that you can tell the difference between disinformation ane dissent. You often can. Let's try some exercises: 1) Bill Gates wants to inject poison/5G chips into your body to bring about the 'new world order' 2) COVID-19 is a hoax 3) There is a pedophile ring run by democratic operatives who shield each other 4) 9/11 never happened 5) Asbestos causes cancer 6) All forms of Asbestos cause cancer to the same degree 7) Disinformation is harmful And so on. For each of these you can figure out for yourself if they are simply positions or disinformation based on the content presented and the lack of or presence of supporting facts. Also: by stating that something is 100% false you are engaging in the exact fallacy that the article suffers from: you exhibit a degree of certainty that does not leave any room for dissent, making a fruitful discussion impossible because up front you have already indicated your unwillingness to shift your position. A more reasonable line of arguing would have started with 'I disagree, because:'. By declaring your apparent opponents view to be '100% false' up front you actually disqualify yourself. Disinformation isn't hard to spot. What is hard is to get people to stop spreading it once it is in circulation, and the fact that there are people who get paid to do this - and to do it on both sides of an argument at the same time - shows that there is something a bit more nasty going on than mere disagreement about some details. That you are so ready to pull that cart a little further should worry you. Censorship is bad, but spreading disinformation under the guise of 'free speech' is also bad. Now you need to figure out a way to stop the second without falling into the first. This is a hard problem, and one that you will not solve by parrotting absolutist positions.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  What about these: - all American presidents in the last hundred years have been war criminals, and would have been hanged if judged by the standards of the Nuremberg trials. - despite what all tabacco company medical studies claim, tabacco causes cancer - there are no WMDs in Irak, all of the agencies claiming that they have evidence of such are simply lying to our faces Which of these are dissent and which are disinformation? What do you think your thoughts would have been on them before their truth became public knowledge?
- patcon 6y ago
  New responder. First off: I am NOT a free speech libertarian. I've reluctantly come to consider that lies that are believed by 40% of population are de facto facts. We can't so easily just take them off the menu because we "in our wisdom" recognize them for what they are. It will make them more sought after and forbidden. And because we can't ACTUALLY remove them like we used to be able to -- now that we've invented uncensorable internets -- we need new approaches. I for one set my hopes on tools that augment empathy across wider digital chasms. After all, empathy is the biological "technology" that conscious networks already invented/evolved to stabilize the network. The pattern has been proven a success by virtue of the fact that... civilization worked up til now. We just need to bolt on some things that allow it to work just as well online as it does in meatspace All imho, of course :) And very kindly stated, with willingness to be wrong
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I think we're going to have to agree to disagree if we can not begin to start out from something as axiomatic as what a fact is. A fact is something that is observably true, and no matter how many people believe something that isn't true doesn't make it a fact. It just makes it a wide-spread falsehood. Democratic institutions and free speech are both great goods and very fragile. They also both have the core capability of destroying the other, which presents us with some considerable difficulties that I do not think will be resolved in my lifetime or that of my children, simply because I do not believe humanity to be mature enough yet to recognize that the powers that divide us are endemic and would need serious attention first if we are to overcome this particular barrier.
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Bill Gates really did want to inject poison into people as part of an agenda to bring about a 'new world order'. Obviously he would work very hard to conceal these intentions, so this would not be "observably" true or false by simply reading the newspaper to see whether he has or has not done it yet. You'd be left to draw conclusions from the publicly available facts. Some facts which one might view as supporting the proposition would be a close association with a convicted pedophile sex trafficker who professed eugenic beliefs, a publicly stated desire to reduce the population, or a history of distributing vaccines which caused actual and significant harm in at least one instance. Now, the fact that all these do apply to Bill Gates does not mean the proposition is necessarily true, but I don't see how you can say it's "observably" anything.
- oji0hub 6y ago
  > You often can. Let's try some exercises: Most of the times most of these things are complete straw men that people claim _others_ believe. And you fell for it. so no you can't.
  - choward 6y ago
    Exactly. And if you question the covid response you automatically get thrown into these groups. None of these are examples in the article either. It's almost like they didn't read it.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    "most" - so which one's aren't? Which ones are? You seem surprisingly confident in declaring the argument wrong yet oddly lethargic to actually explain why.
- konjin 6y ago
  >3) There is a pedophile ring run by democratic operatives who shield each other This will not age well.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  > Disinformation isn't hard to spot. What is hard is to get people to stop spreading it once it is in circulation These both cannot be true. If disinformation is easy to spot, then not many people will be taken in by it.
  - psyc 6y ago
    I'd venture that certain [generally skeptical?] people find it easy to spot. So, disinfo is easy to spot for someone who makes it their business to spot it. I don't know the ratio of skeptical to credulous in the population, but from recent events it is apparently not great. Ever wonder what kind of person responds to spam, such that there's an incentive to send spam? I have a friend who regularly asks me, "Hey, what do you think about [insert conspiracy theory]? Pretty crazy world, huh?" Then I ask, "Where did you hear that?" They say, "It's in the news!" I ask, "In the regular news? Or like, InfoWars." They say, "The regular news!" I Google it. The only result is a site even worse than InfoWars. I tell them that site is pure garbage, that the story appears nowhere in mainstream news, and if I can find a debunking I send it to them. This happens, like, biweekly. This person is a highly educated, extremely intelligent, experienced professional. Not a rube. What's the difference between us? It's not that I'm smart and they're dumb.
    - Malician 6y ago
      If you're motivated enough to believe something, you'll find a way to believe it regardless. If there are smart arguments in favor of what you want to believe, you'll go for them. If those don't exist, you'll seek the next best.

jacquesm 6y ago

> your argument hinges on the assumption that you can tell the difference between disinformation ane dissent. You often can. Let's try some exercises: 1) Bill Gates wants to inject poison/5G chips into your body to bring about the 'new world order' 2) COVID-19 is a hoax 3) There is a pedophile ring run by democratic operatives who shield each other 4) 9/11 never happened 5) Asbestos causes cancer 6) All forms of Asbestos cause cancer to the same degree 7) Disinformation is harmful And so on. For each of these you can figure out for yourself if they are simply positions or disinformation based on the content presented and the lack of or presence of supporting facts. Also: by stating that something is 100% false you are engaging in the exact fallacy that the article suffers from: you exhibit a degree of certainty that does not leave any room for dissent, making a fruitful discussion impossible because up front you have already indicated your unwillingness to shift your position. A more reasonable line of arguing would have started with 'I disagree, because:'. By declaring your apparent opponents view to be '100% false' up front you actually disqualify yourself. Disinformation isn't hard to spot. What is hard is to get people to stop spreading it once it is in circulation, and the fact that there are people who get paid to do this - and to do it on both sides of an argument at the same time - shows that there is something a bit more nasty going on than mere disagreement about some details. That you are so ready to pull that cart a little further should worry you. Censorship is bad, but spreading disinformation under the guise of 'free speech' is also bad. Now you need to figure out a way to stop the second without falling into the first. This is a hard problem, and one that you will not solve by parrotting absolutist positions.

tsimionescu 6y ago
What about these: - all American presidents in the last hundred years have been war criminals, and would have been hanged if judged by the standards of the Nuremberg trials. - despite what all tabacco company medical studies claim, tabacco causes cancer - there are no WMDs in Irak, all of the agencies claiming that they have evidence of such are simply lying to our faces Which of these are dissent and which are disinformation? What do you think your thoughts would have been on them before their truth became public knowledge?
patcon 6y ago
New responder. First off: I am NOT a free speech libertarian. I've reluctantly come to consider that lies that are believed by 40% of population are de facto facts. We can't so easily just take them off the menu because we "in our wisdom" recognize them for what they are. It will make them more sought after and forbidden. And because we can't ACTUALLY remove them like we used to be able to -- now that we've invented uncensorable internets -- we need new approaches. I for one set my hopes on tools that augment empathy across wider digital chasms. After all, empathy is the biological "technology" that conscious networks already invented/evolved to stabilize the network. The pattern has been proven a success by virtue of the fact that... civilization worked up til now. We just need to bolt on some things that allow it to work just as well online as it does in meatspace All imho, of course :) And very kindly stated, with willingness to be wrong
- jacquesm 6y ago
  I think we're going to have to agree to disagree if we can not begin to start out from something as axiomatic as what a fact is. A fact is something that is observably true, and no matter how many people believe something that isn't true doesn't make it a fact. It just makes it a wide-spread falsehood. Democratic institutions and free speech are both great goods and very fragile. They also both have the core capability of destroying the other, which presents us with some considerable difficulties that I do not think will be resolved in my lifetime or that of my children, simply because I do not believe humanity to be mature enough yet to recognize that the powers that divide us are endemic and would need serious attention first if we are to overcome this particular barrier.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Bill Gates really did want to inject poison into people as part of an agenda to bring about a 'new world order'. Obviously he would work very hard to conceal these intentions, so this would not be "observably" true or false by simply reading the newspaper to see whether he has or has not done it yet. You'd be left to draw conclusions from the publicly available facts. Some facts which one might view as supporting the proposition would be a close association with a convicted pedophile sex trafficker who professed eugenic beliefs, a publicly stated desire to reduce the population, or a history of distributing vaccines which caused actual and significant harm in at least one instance. Now, the fact that all these do apply to Bill Gates does not mean the proposition is necessarily true, but I don't see how you can say it's "observably" anything.
oji0hub 6y ago
> You often can. Let's try some exercises: Most of the times most of these things are complete straw men that people claim _others_ believe. And you fell for it. so no you can't.
- choward 6y ago
  Exactly. And if you question the covid response you automatically get thrown into these groups. None of these are examples in the article either. It's almost like they didn't read it.
- XorNot 6y ago
  "most" - so which one's aren't? Which ones are? You seem surprisingly confident in declaring the argument wrong yet oddly lethargic to actually explain why.
konjin 6y ago
>3) There is a pedophile ring run by democratic operatives who shield each other This will not age well.
throwawayboise 6y ago
> Disinformation isn't hard to spot. What is hard is to get people to stop spreading it once it is in circulation These both cannot be true. If disinformation is easy to spot, then not many people will be taken in by it.
- psyc 6y ago
  I'd venture that certain [generally skeptical?] people find it easy to spot. So, disinfo is easy to spot for someone who makes it their business to spot it. I don't know the ratio of skeptical to credulous in the population, but from recent events it is apparently not great. Ever wonder what kind of person responds to spam, such that there's an incentive to send spam? I have a friend who regularly asks me, "Hey, what do you think about [insert conspiracy theory]? Pretty crazy world, huh?" Then I ask, "Where did you hear that?" They say, "It's in the news!" I ask, "In the regular news? Or like, InfoWars." They say, "The regular news!" I Google it. The only result is a site even worse than InfoWars. I tell them that site is pure garbage, that the story appears nowhere in mainstream news, and if I can find a debunking I send it to them. This happens, like, biweekly. This person is a highly educated, extremely intelligent, experienced professional. Not a rube. What's the difference between us? It's not that I'm smart and they're dumb.
  - Malician 6y ago
    If you're motivated enough to believe something, you'll find a way to believe it regardless. If there are smart arguments in favor of what you want to believe, you'll go for them. If those don't exist, you'll seek the next best.