3 ms·

I appreciate your reasoned response. But the misinformation that we tend to focus on isn't "we faked the moon landing" or "the sky is a layer of impenetrable fo

by whakim 6y ago

I appreciate your reasoned response. But the misinformation that we tend to focus on isn't "we faked the moon landing" or "the sky is a layer of impenetrable foil." It's anti-muslim riots in Sri Lanka[1] or the fact that a large percentage of the US electorate believes that the 2020 election was fraudulent. These are clearly cases of "real and demonstrable harm," even if you believe that other things also sometimes cause harm (even if you believe other things cause more harm!). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_coverage_of_Sri_Lankan_businesses_after_the_2019_Easter_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_coverage_of_Sri_Lank... Edit: I also wanted to point out that there's a technical term for true information that causes harm, "malinformation." Those of us who have studied misinformation have actually spent a lot of time documenting how misinformation has appropriated the trappings of malinformation in order to become more convincing. Furthermore, most of the misinformation being shared by volume on social media isn't of the "the sky is a layer of impenetrable foil" variety.

apostacy 6y ago
> I also wanted to point out that there's a technical term for true information that causes harm, "malinformation." Wow, that is such an Orwellian thing to say. The definition you just gave could be used to justify censorship of any truthful information. Yes, this factual information is upsetting, but we need to let Facebook cover our eyes and decide how outraged we are allowed to be. Otherwise we might hurt ourselves or others. I can appreciate that factual information could be presented in a dishonest way, but if it is so misleading, how is it not just misinformation? Malinformation as a concept is specifically that truthful information can be problematic and we need to be "protected" from it. If the truth is upsetting, then try to solve the problem, not people talking about it. --- Then again, perhaps good malinformation policies could have averted rioting last summer, and we could have censored the initial George Floyd video that made it look like Floyd was murdered by a cop. The police later released evidence that Floyd had overdosed on fentanyl and most likely died of natural causes. So, if our friends in big tech had simply censored things until the full facts came out and we could see context, it would have been more orderly and harmonious. Isn't preventing rioting and civil unrest one of their goals? Too bad we couldn't have blunted the outrage.
- LocalH 6y ago
  > Malinformation as a concept is specifically that truthful information can be problematic and we need to be "protected" from it. I don't see that the second half of that is inherent to the concept of "malinformation". There are situations where unabashed, unfiltered truth can be damaging or problematic. Defining that concept with a term is not in any way attempting to solve that concept. It doesn't presume that something has to be "done" about malinformation, but it can provide additional perspective on ways that misinformation can spread.
  - apostacy 6y ago
    I don't see any benefit to having this terminology, other than as a pretext for censorship. Calling it "mal" information implies that truthful information can be bad. Calling it something more neutral like "unfiltered" or "unabashed" would be more accurate.
- whakim 6y ago
  > The definition you just gave could be used to justify censorship of any truthful information. Do you not agree that truthful information can sometimes cause harm? What if I, say, reveal the identities of all CIA agents operating in China? > I can appreciate that factual information could be presented in a dishonest way, but if it is so misleading, how is it not just misinformation? Misinformation and malinformation are two different terms that mean different things: misinformation is never true, and malinformation is always true. If you read my posts, I've been pretty careful to say that I don't necessarily have all the answers to the way different types of information spread across the internet. I just wanted to give some more context to the way researchers discuss these subjects. > The police later released evidence that Floyd had overdosed on fentanyl and most likely died of natural causes I hadn't heard this before, and don't really want to wade into it, but I'll just leave this here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/blog-posting/two-autopsies-found-george-floyds-death-was-homici/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/blog-posti...
  - fit2rule 6y ago

by whakim 6y ago

apostacy 6y ago

> I also wanted to point out that there's a technical term for true information that causes harm, "malinformation." Wow, that is such an Orwellian thing to say. The definition you just gave could be used to justify censorship of any truthful information. Yes, this factual information is upsetting, but we need to let Facebook cover our eyes and decide how outraged we are allowed to be. Otherwise we might hurt ourselves or others. I can appreciate that factual information could be presented in a dishonest way, but if it is so misleading, how is it not just misinformation? Malinformation as a concept is specifically that truthful information can be problematic and we need to be "protected" from it. If the truth is upsetting, then try to solve the problem, not people talking about it. --- Then again, perhaps good malinformation policies could have averted rioting last summer, and we could have censored the initial George Floyd video that made it look like Floyd was murdered by a cop. The police later released evidence that Floyd had overdosed on fentanyl and most likely died of natural causes. So, if our friends in big tech had simply censored things until the full facts came out and we could see context, it would have been more orderly and harmonious. Isn't preventing rioting and civil unrest one of their goals? Too bad we couldn't have blunted the outrage.

LocalH 6y ago
> Malinformation as a concept is specifically that truthful information can be problematic and we need to be "protected" from it. I don't see that the second half of that is inherent to the concept of "malinformation". There are situations where unabashed, unfiltered truth can be damaging or problematic. Defining that concept with a term is not in any way attempting to solve that concept. It doesn't presume that something has to be "done" about malinformation, but it can provide additional perspective on ways that misinformation can spread.
- apostacy 6y ago
  I don't see any benefit to having this terminology, other than as a pretext for censorship. Calling it "mal" information implies that truthful information can be bad. Calling it something more neutral like "unfiltered" or "unabashed" would be more accurate.
whakim 6y ago
> The definition you just gave could be used to justify censorship of any truthful information. Do you not agree that truthful information can sometimes cause harm? What if I, say, reveal the identities of all CIA agents operating in China? > I can appreciate that factual information could be presented in a dishonest way, but if it is so misleading, how is it not just misinformation? Misinformation and malinformation are two different terms that mean different things: misinformation is never true, and malinformation is always true. If you read my posts, I've been pretty careful to say that I don't necessarily have all the answers to the way different types of information spread across the internet. I just wanted to give some more context to the way researchers discuss these subjects. > The police later released evidence that Floyd had overdosed on fentanyl and most likely died of natural causes I hadn't heard this before, and don't really want to wade into it, but I'll just leave this here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/blog-posting/two-autopsies-found-george-floyds-death-was-homici/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/blog-posti...
- fit2rule 6y ago