3 ms·

> Media are legitimate influences > Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (o

> Media are legitimate influences > Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex? > Society agreed to allow media to exist "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it. > (and are held to that standard) Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.

uniqueuid 5y ago
> So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex? Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc. > "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it. Right, let me be more precise: Society, through its existing mechanisms of decision-making, decided to draft and ratify laws that ... > Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard. Well, the US model is that of the "marketplace of opinions", so the assumption is that there is mutual holding accountable. But you can also count the times that citizens and politicians critique "the media", and I'd say there is pretty much holding accountable going on! :)
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  In the "marketplace of opinions", everyone is automatically accountable. So accountability should be deleted from your list of features that distinguish disinformation.
  - uniqueuid 5y ago
    Only if they are communicating with some identifier! If someone poses as other people (which these campaigns do), accountability becomes impossible because normal users cannot tell who said what.

uniqueuid 5y ago

> So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex? Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc. > "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it. Right, let me be more precise: Society, through its existing mechanisms of decision-making, decided to draft and ratify laws that ... > Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard. Well, the US model is that of the "marketplace of opinions", so the assumption is that there is mutual holding accountable. But you can also count the times that citizens and politicians critique "the media", and I'd say there is pretty much holding accountable going on! :)

denton-scratch 5y ago
In the "marketplace of opinions", everyone is automatically accountable. So accountability should be deleted from your list of features that distinguish disinformation.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Only if they are communicating with some identifier! If someone poses as other people (which these campaigns do), accountability becomes impossible because normal users cannot tell who said what.