3 ms·

I think this article spot-on. In my opinion, there is very little (but not zero) actual misinformation on the Internet. Most of what we call “misinformation” is

I think this article spot-on. In my opinion, there is very little (but not zero) actual misinformation on the Internet. Most of what we call “misinformation” is an influence campaign by one side, which is thoroughly disliked by the opposing side. When Big Tech labels something “misinformation” they are essentially taking one side or the other on the issue at hand.

ordinaryradical 5y ago
> there is very little (but not zero) actual misinformation on the Internet. It’s not the amount to take issue with but the spread of its influence. Anti-vaccine ideology was given a platform by big tech and now we have an endemic disease because folks believe that nonsense and let it hold sway over their medical decisions. Edit: for folks voting this down I’d be interested in a rebuttal or at least an explanation of how this doesn’t add to the conversation. I try to be a good citizen here and thought I was engaging in good faith.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  You don't get to argue that it should be permissible to shut down people's opinions and then complain when your own opinions get shut down.
  - guscost 5y ago
    Especially when in the latter case, it happened organically.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  > Edit: for folks voting this down I’d be interested in a rebuttal or at least an explanation of how this doesn’t add to the conversation. I try to be a good citizen here and thought I was engaging in good faith "Misinformation", someone might say, and we wouldn't have to give you any justification. No freedom from consequences, they say.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  I have downvoted you because you seem to believe that if there were no anti-vaccine sentiment, SARS-2 would not exist, which is patently absurd
  - objectivetruth 5y ago
    Nope, OP didn't say SARS-2 was caused by anti-vax sentiment, they said it became endemic because of it. Words matter.
topkai22 5y ago
I watched my mom’s* Facebook feed for a bit on Jan 6. In a span of 30 minutes she was getting bombarded by claims that the people invading the capital in order to overturn the election were actually antifa complete with a veneer of evidence**, a passage that was misattributed to Dave Ramsey***, along with all the normal claims about a “stolen” election. The misinformation may be coming out of a organized campaign or it may arising organically, but it definitely exists in droves and is spread by social media. It exists on both sides, but it is not balanced. * thankfully, she’s pretty discerning and don’t believe any of this, but believes it is important to not le this sort of behavior cause her to “unfriend” people she’s known for decades. ** just to be clear, they weren’t, and the evidence was that pictures of insurrectionists appeared on an antifa web site. That was true, but that’s because they appeared on the part of the website dedicated to documenting people as fascists *** I found the original source in about a minute, and a public rebuttal from Dave Ramsey in two
spoonjim 5y ago
This comment shows the power of disinformation — pure lies like “the election was stolen” or “vaccines cause autism” if repeated enough become “differences of opinion” with two different “sides.”

ordinaryradical 5y ago

> there is very little (but not zero) actual misinformation on the Internet. It’s not the amount to take issue with but the spread of its influence. Anti-vaccine ideology was given a platform by big tech and now we have an endemic disease because folks believe that nonsense and let it hold sway over their medical decisions. Edit: for folks voting this down I’d be interested in a rebuttal or at least an explanation of how this doesn’t add to the conversation. I try to be a good citizen here and thought I was engaging in good faith.

Turing_Machine 5y ago
You don't get to argue that it should be permissible to shut down people's opinions and then complain when your own opinions get shut down.
- guscost 5y ago
  Especially when in the latter case, it happened organically.
mancerayder 5y ago
> Edit: for folks voting this down I’d be interested in a rebuttal or at least an explanation of how this doesn’t add to the conversation. I try to be a good citizen here and thought I was engaging in good faith "Misinformation", someone might say, and we wouldn't have to give you any justification. No freedom from consequences, they say.
__blockcipher__ 5y ago
I have downvoted you because you seem to believe that if there were no anti-vaccine sentiment, SARS-2 would not exist, which is patently absurd
- objectivetruth 5y ago
  Nope, OP didn't say SARS-2 was caused by anti-vax sentiment, they said it became endemic because of it. Words matter.

topkai22 5y ago

I watched my mom’s* Facebook feed for a bit on Jan 6. In a span of 30 minutes she was getting bombarded by claims that the people invading the capital in order to overturn the election were actually antifa complete with a veneer of evidence**, a passage that was misattributed to Dave Ramsey***, along with all the normal claims about a “stolen” election. The misinformation may be coming out of a organized campaign or it may arising organically, but it definitely exists in droves and is spread by social media. It exists on both sides, but it is not balanced. * thankfully, she’s pretty discerning and don’t believe any of this, but believes it is important to not le this sort of behavior cause her to “unfriend” people she’s known for decades. ** just to be clear, they weren’t, and the evidence was that pictures of insurrectionists appeared on an antifa web site. That was true, but that’s because they appeared on the part of the website dedicated to documenting people as fascists *** I found the original source in about a minute, and a public rebuttal from Dave Ramsey in two

spoonjim 5y ago

This comment shows the power of disinformation — pure lies like “the election was stolen” or “vaccines cause autism” if repeated enough become “differences of opinion” with two different “sides.”