6 ms·

>I'm generally in favour of the actions taken against misinformation... Who would be the one to determine what is misinformation and what is not?

dylan604 5y ago
The evidence?
- ratsmack 5y ago
  Speculation and conjecture is not always evident, but is many times useful in determining the evidence. But this type of discussion was axed from many forums as "misinformation".
- generalizations 5y ago
  There were even videos of chinese scientists trying to get the word out about the virus and the lab leak liklihood. There was plenty of evidence, if you knew where to look. 'Evidence' is tangential to the decision making behind misinformation tags.
  - kristofferR 5y ago
    The problem is that "evidence" is pretty easy to find. Even the wildest conspiracy theories has pages and pages of links to their evidence. Who should evaluate the evidence for its credibility?
    - generalizations 5y ago
      Is that a serious question? Here's a better one: Who has the right to tell others what they may, and may not, decide for themselves?
    - deepnotderp 5y ago
      > Who should evaluate the evidence for its credibility? Why the Ministry of Truth of course
    - pupdogg 5y ago
      I don’t have an answer to that but it most certainly should NOT be New York Times, Business Insider, WAPO, FactCheckXYZ, etc style publications.
      - andybak 5y ago
        Wait. You've just excluded a bunch of stuff without even hinting what you're in favour of. For all we know, you might think it should be Alex Jones. Don't do this. It's hand-waving and people can read all kinds of things into it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  "Evidence" is not a person, and can't make decisions. Decisions are made by people, who we hope are informed by evidence. Who are these people and how are they chosen? What mechanisms exist to evaluate their effectiveness and recall them when they fail? These questions are currently being answered by American corporations, which is not confidence inspiring.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    >Decisions are made by people, who we hope are informed by evidence. That hope is lost. It's really easy to get overwhelmed in how doomed we seemed to be because of it. People are believing things in spite of evidence, and are absolutely rooted in that belief to society's detrement. How much further could be be if beliefs were no longer held onto once evidence were present that shows that belief to just not be correct? Sadly, I don't think we will ever know.
    - wearywanderer 5y ago
      Some people will believe stupid things no matter the evidence until the day they die. I don't consider this such a severe problem as to warrant putting some people in charge of what others should believe. Just the contrary in fact...
      - jkhdigital 5y ago
        Not just some people—everyone.
        wearywanderer 5y ago
        Quite right, myself not least of all.
lenkite 5y ago
About 15 billionaires and six corporations who own most US media outlets.

dylan604 5y ago

The evidence?

ratsmack 5y ago
Speculation and conjecture is not always evident, but is many times useful in determining the evidence. But this type of discussion was axed from many forums as "misinformation".
generalizations 5y ago
There were even videos of chinese scientists trying to get the word out about the virus and the lab leak liklihood. There was plenty of evidence, if you knew where to look. 'Evidence' is tangential to the decision making behind misinformation tags.
- kristofferR 5y ago
  The problem is that "evidence" is pretty easy to find. Even the wildest conspiracy theories has pages and pages of links to their evidence. Who should evaluate the evidence for its credibility?
  - generalizations 5y ago
    Is that a serious question? Here's a better one: Who has the right to tell others what they may, and may not, decide for themselves?
  - deepnotderp 5y ago
    > Who should evaluate the evidence for its credibility? Why the Ministry of Truth of course
  - pupdogg 5y ago
    I don’t have an answer to that but it most certainly should NOT be New York Times, Business Insider, WAPO, FactCheckXYZ, etc style publications.
    - andybak 5y ago
      Wait. You've just excluded a bunch of stuff without even hinting what you're in favour of. For all we know, you might think it should be Alex Jones. Don't do this. It's hand-waving and people can read all kinds of things into it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wearywanderer 5y ago
"Evidence" is not a person, and can't make decisions. Decisions are made by people, who we hope are informed by evidence. Who are these people and how are they chosen? What mechanisms exist to evaluate their effectiveness and recall them when they fail? These questions are currently being answered by American corporations, which is not confidence inspiring.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >Decisions are made by people, who we hope are informed by evidence. That hope is lost. It's really easy to get overwhelmed in how doomed we seemed to be because of it. People are believing things in spite of evidence, and are absolutely rooted in that belief to society's detrement. How much further could be be if beliefs were no longer held onto once evidence were present that shows that belief to just not be correct? Sadly, I don't think we will ever know.
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    Some people will believe stupid things no matter the evidence until the day they die. I don't consider this such a severe problem as to warrant putting some people in charge of what others should believe. Just the contrary in fact...
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      Not just some people—everyone.
      - wearywanderer 5y ago
        Quite right, myself not least of all.

lenkite 5y ago

About 15 billionaires and six corporations who own most US media outlets.