4 ms·

Who determines what is true and what's a lie? Why do you trust them to make the right call?

by avesi 6y ago

dnissley 6y ago
Precisely -- and let's be clear here: the disinformation being discussed here breaks down along partisan lines. We can barely get republicans and democrats to agree on a budget, what makes anyone think that they could reasonably come to an agreement on objective standards of truth in media? Let alone a process by which those standards are enforced? This is way, wayyyyy outside the realm of reality.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I agree with your point, though I think your example is a bit flawed: I think it's reasonable to disagree on what should be in a budget; there's no one "correct" budget where all other budgets are wrong. On the other side, facts are facts. Assuming you actually have all the facts (which often we don't), there is only a single truth.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    What people call a “fact” for these purposes is a lot broader than what epistemologically qualifies as a “fact.” You can see this with a lot of “fact checking” websites. The second item on the fact-check.org website is whether reduced wind power caused the Texas electrical outages: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/wind-turbines-didnt-cause-texas-energy-crisis/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/wind-turbines-didnt-cause-... The percentage drop in window power megawatts is a “fact.” What “caused” the Texas power outage is a multi-variable system analysis that produces a conclusion, not a fact, under certain specified assumptions. (This is obvious to an engineer: the NTSB spends months investigating what “caused” a plane crash, and issues a report with conclusions, not facts. The notion that some journalist can in a day or two perform a similar analysis on a complex system like a power grid, and report the result as a “fact” blinks reality.)
  - dnissley 6y ago
    There's not only the issue of incomplete information, there's the issue of salience. There are an infinite number of true statements. Which ones do you focus on? Which ones are the right ones to focus on? You can detect bias in reporting not only based on what is said, but about what is not even mentioned. The new york times won't run a story sympathetic to liberal individuals pushing back against the excesses of critical race theory. Fox news won't report on how even though there were anomalies in the election, none justified stopping the transfer of power to the Biden administration. Both are bullshit.
noxer 6y ago
Yes, the "fact-checkers" we already have should give us a hint at what "lie-checkers" would do.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Then don’t have them. Having lie checkers on the internet is a moronic idea. This rule is to stop organized coordinated disinformation campaigns. It’s to take down sites who’s whole purpose is to literally make up news stories, present them as fact, and spread them on social media.
  - noxer 6y ago
    It was mean sarcastic. In case you haven't figured out how awful the fact-checkers are. An no, if you ban "disinformation" you ban free speech. There is no way to figure out if a flat earther publishes something for disinformation purpose or if he really believes what he writes. Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it, not by removing it. Most people have heard form the flat earth but most dont believe it. Because they can inform themself. That's how it should be. No need to "save" everyone trough authoritarian measures. The risk here is way higher than having to deal with some forever flat earther.
    - scrollaway 6y ago
      > Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it I used to believe that as well. Then we did real world practical experiments over the last decade. It's clear most people don't give a shit about informing themselves and will readily believe just about anything. Not saying the solution is regulating what can / cannot be said, but this idea that free speech is the ultimate thing isn't working when you have groups that can spend troves of cash making their disinformation legitimate enough for the masses. Both you and i probably believe at least one, maybe more of those things, by the way. It's not all outlandish nonsense, sometimes it's reasonable enough to believe at first glance and you don't bother looking it up afterwards.
      - 6y ago
Spivak 6y ago
Wait no. That’s not how this works. There’s no determination of fact. It doesn’t matter whether what you said is true or false — this isn’t a rule against being wrong. It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people. Like it’s literally the same ideas as fraud but applied to misinformation. If you believe that climate change is a hoax then you’re fine, tell the world. But if you make up a study and data “disproving” climate change and then circulate it in Facebook then you’re not.
- gizmondo 6y ago
  Unless you have a mind-reading device, there is no way to be sure what somebody believes.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    > Unless you have a mind-reading device, there is no way to be sure what somebody believes. In general, we are comfortable doing this in at least some contexts. The legal system in almost every case attempts to ascertain intention to satisfy the mens rea of a criminal act. They don't have mind reading devices, but they do have expert witnesses such as psychologists and doctors, and testimony.
- lurquer 6y ago
  > It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people. If one doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, yet publishes erudite webpages with the intent to mislead others (at least from his POV) into thinking it really happened, would that be a problem? If yes, you are consistent, albeit a bit crazy. If no, your rule reduces, once again, to a focus on the falsity of the communication as opposed to the writers intent.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    It would be a problem! I don’t think people would care as much because it’s the same as stealing a balloon on free balloon day but you still have a guilty mind and had the intent to deceive people regardless of your success at it. It becomes a bigger issue if the evidence on the site is made up but I won’t assume that.
onethought 6y ago
I don’t understand this. Can you give an example where the truth is some how elusive or difficult to obtain? Human knowledge is pretty advanced and accessible.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Who determines what is true and what's a lie? Why do you trust them to make the right call?

by avesi 6y ago

Who determines what is true and what's a lie? Why do you trust them to make the right call?

Precisely -- and let's be clear here: the disinformation being discussed here breaks down along partisan lines. We can barely get republicans and democrats to agree on a budget, what makes anyone think that they could reasonably come to an agreement on objective standards of truth in media? Let alone a process by which those standards are enforced? This is way, wayyyyy outside the realm of reality.

kelnos 6y ago
I agree with your point, though I think your example is a bit flawed: I think it's reasonable to disagree on what should be in a budget; there's no one "correct" budget where all other budgets are wrong. On the other side, facts are facts. Assuming you actually have all the facts (which often we don't), there is only a single truth.
- rayiner 6y ago
  What people call a “fact” for these purposes is a lot broader than what epistemologically qualifies as a “fact.” You can see this with a lot of “fact checking” websites. The second item on the fact-check.org website is whether reduced wind power caused the Texas electrical outages: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/wind-turbines-didnt-cause-texas-energy-crisis/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/wind-turbines-didnt-cause-... The percentage drop in window power megawatts is a “fact.” What “caused” the Texas power outage is a multi-variable system analysis that produces a conclusion, not a fact, under certain specified assumptions. (This is obvious to an engineer: the NTSB spends months investigating what “caused” a plane crash, and issues a report with conclusions, not facts. The notion that some journalist can in a day or two perform a similar analysis on a complex system like a power grid, and report the result as a “fact” blinks reality.)
- dnissley 6y ago
  There's not only the issue of incomplete information, there's the issue of salience. There are an infinite number of true statements. Which ones do you focus on? Which ones are the right ones to focus on? You can detect bias in reporting not only based on what is said, but about what is not even mentioned. The new york times won't run a story sympathetic to liberal individuals pushing back against the excesses of critical race theory. Fox news won't report on how even though there were anomalies in the election, none justified stopping the transfer of power to the Biden administration. Both are bullshit.

noxer 6y ago

Yes, the "fact-checkers" we already have should give us a hint at what "lie-checkers" would do.

Spivak 6y ago
Then don’t have them. Having lie checkers on the internet is a moronic idea. This rule is to stop organized coordinated disinformation campaigns. It’s to take down sites who’s whole purpose is to literally make up news stories, present them as fact, and spread them on social media.
- noxer 6y ago
  It was mean sarcastic. In case you haven't figured out how awful the fact-checkers are. An no, if you ban "disinformation" you ban free speech. There is no way to figure out if a flat earther publishes something for disinformation purpose or if he really believes what he writes. Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it, not by removing it. Most people have heard form the flat earth but most dont believe it. Because they can inform themself. That's how it should be. No need to "save" everyone trough authoritarian measures. The risk here is way higher than having to deal with some forever flat earther.
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    > Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it I used to believe that as well. Then we did real world practical experiments over the last decade. It's clear most people don't give a shit about informing themselves and will readily believe just about anything. Not saying the solution is regulating what can / cannot be said, but this idea that free speech is the ultimate thing isn't working when you have groups that can spend troves of cash making their disinformation legitimate enough for the masses. Both you and i probably believe at least one, maybe more of those things, by the way. It's not all outlandish nonsense, sometimes it's reasonable enough to believe at first glance and you don't bother looking it up afterwards.
    - 6y ago

Spivak 6y ago

Wait no. That’s not how this works. There’s no determination of fact. It doesn’t matter whether what you said is true or false — this isn’t a rule against being wrong. It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people. Like it’s literally the same ideas as fraud but applied to misinformation. If you believe that climate change is a hoax then you’re fine, tell the world. But if you make up a study and data “disproving” climate change and then circulate it in Facebook then you’re not.

gizmondo 6y ago
Unless you have a mind-reading device, there is no way to be sure what somebody believes.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  > Unless you have a mind-reading device, there is no way to be sure what somebody believes. In general, we are comfortable doing this in at least some contexts. The legal system in almost every case attempts to ascertain intention to satisfy the mens rea of a criminal act. They don't have mind reading devices, but they do have expert witnesses such as psychologists and doctors, and testimony.
lurquer 6y ago
> It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people. If one doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, yet publishes erudite webpages with the intent to mislead others (at least from his POV) into thinking it really happened, would that be a problem? If yes, you are consistent, albeit a bit crazy. If no, your rule reduces, once again, to a focus on the falsity of the communication as opposed to the writers intent.
- Spivak 6y ago
  It would be a problem! I don’t think people would care as much because it’s the same as stealing a balloon on free balloon day but you still have a guilty mind and had the intent to deceive people regardless of your success at it. It becomes a bigger issue if the evidence on the site is made up but I won’t assume that.

onethought 6y ago

I don’t understand this. Can you give an example where the truth is some how elusive or difficult to obtain? Human knowledge is pretty advanced and accessible.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]