3 ms·

"We won't stop people from spreading known misinformation because if we did maybe in the future we might possibly stop people from spreading known factual infor

"We won't stop people from spreading known misinformation because if we did maybe in the future we might possibly stop people from spreading known factual information" is such a terrible argument. The fact that a slippery slope can be identified within a premise does not mean that it exists, and straining at flies while you let a camel pass is an issue that has plagued humanity for thousands of years, and still we are no closer to recognizing it or solving it than we were back then.

ds206 5y ago
I think you have that backwards? For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know. With the invention of the internet, free information flow became the default. I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions. The problem is that we've never had free speech to this extent before. It's a new problem that hasn't been solved yet. I just don't think that censorship is the answer but a regression to the old ways.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Books. Newspapers. Talking. The internet isn't a new thing under the sun. It's just the same old things faster and more widespread. There have always been liars and manipulators who enjoy subverting expectations and undermining honest people. They've mastered the art of seeming perfectly reasonable while demanding the impossible. They say things like, "For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know" and "I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions", and other such seemingly reasonable poppycock. The paradox of tolerance is mentioned quite often, in that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance as otherwise the intolerant will destroy the tolerant. In the same way, there is a paradox of information, that for information to be reliable and free flowing, it must be verifiable from trustworthy sources, and unverifiable and untrustworthy information has to be dammed off from the flow of information. If untrustworthy news is allowed to flourish, then liars and connivers will flourish as well, with Machiavellian intentions to profit off of the lies and confusion they sow along the way. It's happening now and if you don't believe me look at how many people have proudly proclaimed their desire to know untrue information as their right as a citizen of the internet, and how much distrust they have towards people like the CDC who gain nothing from lying to the population. They hold the innocent guilty until they prove themselves innocent and beyond reproach while the people investing in whatever the next quack covid treatment of the week will be they laud and sing praises for them, becoming their enlisted personal army. It's madness and it's all because we allow every lying huckster who can spin a good tale to keep on babbling and dogpile anyone who disagrees with this practice.
idiotsecant 5y ago
This isn't a terrible argument, it's the entire reason we have free speech. If you set precedent that silencing stupid opinions is OK (assuming that the opinion is, in fact, stupid) then you have to trust that the people determining which opinions are stupid will continue to A) be correct and B) continue to act in good faith. Historically this is a pretty much guaranteed fail on a long enough timeline.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  So we can't make anything better because eventually it might get worse. Got it. This is like telling someone not to treat a broken arm because everyone dies eventually. What it should be looked at is like jump-starting a dodgy engine. You give it some fuel and some spark and it spits and sputters and dies. You tinker with it and do it again. If we tinker with the engine of truthfulness long enough, giving it enough fuel and enough spark, eventually we could work out the kinks and get it running. Sure, there will be a lot of false starts and backfires, but it can be made to work. That is worthwhile, and that's what I'll keep advocating for. Too bad you and others like you refuse to be on my side, it would make it a lot easier.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    >So we can't make anything better because eventually it might get worse. Got it. This is a classic strawman. It also ignores the entirety of history where the same wrong claim was made.
vikingerik 5y ago
The problem is, who gets to decide what is misinformation? If you declare misinformation as a reason for banning something, you really just create an arms race to declare anything you don't like as misinformation in order to ban it. Misinformation is fought in the market of free speech and ideas and critical thinking. Not by banning it. That's just might makes right.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Truth gets to decide what is misinformation. This is a divisive and absurd response to a simple statement. The truth is knowable quite easily when lies aren't allowed to survive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - md2020 5y ago
    To me this is a naïve and overly-charitable view of the institutions we rely on to tell the truth about things we don’t directly observe. I’m fine leaving this as a disagreement, though, and honestly hope you are right.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Spin it around: who gets to decide what information and messages are amplifed? Because Reddit is not an unbiased information repository. It amplifies some messages and suppresses others, by numerous mechanisms. Some of those are under direct admin control, some subreddit moderators, some the collective hivemind of users, and a large portion through direct manipulation and gaming by various sources. The platform is already tilted. The question isn't "who" or "how", but what should it tilt towards: bulshit or truth?
md2020 5y ago
I received the full two doses of an mRNA vaccine and I’ll get a third if it’s recommended. I’m confident it’s safe and effective. I still take issue with your inclusion of “known misinformation” and “known factual information”. Sure, in the case of the vaccines, the known facts and misinfo seem to be pretty clear cut and that in this particular case, the people spreading the misinfo are wrong. That doesn’t mean that at some point in the future we won’t face a situation where the facts are less clear and the debate IS legitimate. We saw this with lab leak, and we even saw this with the use of masks early on.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > we even saw this with the use of masks early on And even now it is highly debatable that masks worn by most people are effective. And even if they are effective, do they need to be mandated? And even then, what about kids? Society needs healthy debate.

ds206 5y ago

I think you have that backwards? For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know. With the invention of the internet, free information flow became the default. I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions. The problem is that we've never had free speech to this extent before. It's a new problem that hasn't been solved yet. I just don't think that censorship is the answer but a regression to the old ways.

BizarroLand 5y ago
Books. Newspapers. Talking. The internet isn't a new thing under the sun. It's just the same old things faster and more widespread. There have always been liars and manipulators who enjoy subverting expectations and undermining honest people. They've mastered the art of seeming perfectly reasonable while demanding the impossible. They say things like, "For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know" and "I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions", and other such seemingly reasonable poppycock. The paradox of tolerance is mentioned quite often, in that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance as otherwise the intolerant will destroy the tolerant. In the same way, there is a paradox of information, that for information to be reliable and free flowing, it must be verifiable from trustworthy sources, and unverifiable and untrustworthy information has to be dammed off from the flow of information. If untrustworthy news is allowed to flourish, then liars and connivers will flourish as well, with Machiavellian intentions to profit off of the lies and confusion they sow along the way. It's happening now and if you don't believe me look at how many people have proudly proclaimed their desire to know untrue information as their right as a citizen of the internet, and how much distrust they have towards people like the CDC who gain nothing from lying to the population. They hold the innocent guilty until they prove themselves innocent and beyond reproach while the people investing in whatever the next quack covid treatment of the week will be they laud and sing praises for them, becoming their enlisted personal army. It's madness and it's all because we allow every lying huckster who can spin a good tale to keep on babbling and dogpile anyone who disagrees with this practice.

idiotsecant 5y ago

This isn't a terrible argument, it's the entire reason we have free speech. If you set precedent that silencing stupid opinions is OK (assuming that the opinion is, in fact, stupid) then you have to trust that the people determining which opinions are stupid will continue to A) be correct and B) continue to act in good faith. Historically this is a pretty much guaranteed fail on a long enough timeline.

BizarroLand 5y ago
So we can't make anything better because eventually it might get worse. Got it. This is like telling someone not to treat a broken arm because everyone dies eventually. What it should be looked at is like jump-starting a dodgy engine. You give it some fuel and some spark and it spits and sputters and dies. You tinker with it and do it again. If we tinker with the engine of truthfulness long enough, giving it enough fuel and enough spark, eventually we could work out the kinks and get it running. Sure, there will be a lot of false starts and backfires, but it can be made to work. That is worthwhile, and that's what I'll keep advocating for. Too bad you and others like you refuse to be on my side, it would make it a lot easier.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  >So we can't make anything better because eventually it might get worse. Got it. This is a classic strawman. It also ignores the entirety of history where the same wrong claim was made.

vikingerik 5y ago

The problem is, who gets to decide what is misinformation? If you declare misinformation as a reason for banning something, you really just create an arms race to declare anything you don't like as misinformation in order to ban it. Misinformation is fought in the market of free speech and ideas and critical thinking. Not by banning it. That's just might makes right.

BizarroLand 5y ago
Truth gets to decide what is misinformation. This is a divisive and absurd response to a simple statement. The truth is knowable quite easily when lies aren't allowed to survive.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- md2020 5y ago
  To me this is a naïve and overly-charitable view of the institutions we rely on to tell the truth about things we don’t directly observe. I’m fine leaving this as a disagreement, though, and honestly hope you are right.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Spin it around: who gets to decide what information and messages are amplifed? Because Reddit is not an unbiased information repository. It amplifies some messages and suppresses others, by numerous mechanisms. Some of those are under direct admin control, some subreddit moderators, some the collective hivemind of users, and a large portion through direct manipulation and gaming by various sources. The platform is already tilted. The question isn't "who" or "how", but what should it tilt towards: bulshit or truth?

md2020 5y ago

I received the full two doses of an mRNA vaccine and I’ll get a third if it’s recommended. I’m confident it’s safe and effective. I still take issue with your inclusion of “known misinformation” and “known factual information”. Sure, in the case of the vaccines, the known facts and misinfo seem to be pretty clear cut and that in this particular case, the people spreading the misinfo are wrong. That doesn’t mean that at some point in the future we won’t face a situation where the facts are less clear and the debate IS legitimate. We saw this with lab leak, and we even saw this with the use of masks early on.

spookthesunset 5y ago
> we even saw this with the use of masks early on And even now it is highly debatable that masks worn by most people are effective. And even if they are effective, do they need to be mandated? And even then, what about kids? Society needs healthy debate.