3 ms·

"Misinformation" is one of the most brilliant propaganda coups of my life time. It does not exist. There is no such thing as "misinformation". There is only m

• CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > It does not exist. There is no such thing as "misinformation". Talk about highschool level sophistry. "Nah bro, there are no facts, everything is meaningless, the truth is a lie and all lies are true, man!" Please. > I do believe in objective truth. Oh good, I'm glad you took the time to contradict yourself. > However, if we had a mechanism for objectively determining it in a way we all agreed upon So misinformation exists but we'll never be able to identify it? I repeat: please. The world is not flat. The anunaki don't exist. COVID vaccines don't contain microchips. This isn't even a little bit hard. Does it get hard in the muddy middle? Sure. But your claim that 'There is no such thing as "misinformation"' is pure bunk.
• shkkmo 5y ago
  > It does not exist. There is no such thing as "misinformation". I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. If someone makes statements that they know are false, then they are a liar and are spreading misinformation. If someone makes statements for which they have incontrovertible proof, this is absolutely not misinformation. Just because the gradients between those two are complex, doesn't mean that misinformation doesn't exist, just that the definition of "misinformation" is fuzzy (like so many other words.) (I don't believe in objective truth or meaning. I do believe that communication is impossible without mutually shared subjective truths and meanings.) Edit: The reality is that there is a significant amount of misinformation put out by all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. Some of it (e.g. some press releases) is widely recognized but also generally tolerated. Some of it is partisan. Some of it is widely accepted as truth by almost everyone.
  • jerf 5y ago
    I was, perhaps, unclear. Of course objective falsehoods exist. However, it's a motte & bailey argument to talk about how objective falsehoods exist, but then as soon as we're talking about policy to pretend that we've got some kind of objective way of determining what they are. My point is that "misinformation" should always come attached with an "according to X". Some Xs are more reliable than others. However, as I said and will certainly stand by, "according to Google corporate policy" or "according to Facebook corporate policy" is not one of the more reliable of them. Google and Facebook corporate policy is not in a position to be making that determination, and whatever metrics they are using it is certainly not any definition of truth I recognize. There's also going to be quite a lot of disagreement about which of those Xs are reliable and how much. This disagreement is not suddenly resolved by stripping away the provenance of statements and letting the word "misinformation" float free without worrying about provenance. It is absolutely valid to discuss how much to trust a given source, but the propaganda word "misinformation" is like the passive voice of propaganda... it isn't misinformation according to X or according to Y, it's just... "misinformation", floating free and objectively determinable. It's a pretty serious step back in philosophical sophistication. I also think there's a lot of people accepting "misinformation according to our global elite" who, if they thought about it a bit more clearly, would wonder why they're accepting that definition so easily and thoroughly.
    • shkkmo 5y ago
      > My point is that "misinformation" should always come attached with an "according to X". Some Xs are more reliable than others. The value of specifying epistemic sources is as important when putting forward information as it is when labeling misinformation. Yet most people are generally pretty lax at including and verifying epistemic justifications (especially for claims they are inclined to agree with.) It is true that the act of labeling things as misinformation can itself be a form of misinformation. The issue, as I see it, is that we have accepted the practice of deliberate misinformation as long as it is "for a good cause". We don't place as much value in people trying accurately convey information and nuance as we place on the function that information is serving. I see this everywhere: in the statements about masks that were made early in the pandemic to make sure healthcare workers had supplies. You see this is narratives about the last election. You see this is in a lot of the reporting about Russiagate. There are little to no consequences or reprobation from people who agree with the end goals. The incentives are all wrong and I don't know how they get fixed, but the problem is much bigger than just "Big Tech", "Social Media" or a bunch of stupid people on the otherside of the partisan divide.