3 ms·
Publishing provably false statements or reports with intent to deceive (or even just gross negligence) falls pretty squarely under the definition of misinformat
by otterley 5y ago
Publishing provably false statements or reports with intent to deceive (or even just gross negligence) falls pretty squarely under the definition of misinformation. This isn’t very controversial, except among nut cases.
- tommymachine 5y agoOh. I see. So when a computer system sends signals over a wire, if it represents "provably false statements", it's actually misinformation, and not information. All those 1s and 0s instantly switch from information to misinformation, the minute their final representative form embodies a "provably false statement". Who decides what's provably false, by the way? Are the novels of Tolkien "misinformation", since it could presumably be easily proved that the events described in them didn't actually happen? And what is the burden of proof for "intent to deceive"? And in which court is this all decided? Who decides? Just people in your group right? What ever your group happens to be. Sure hope we all worship your god then, because the other gods are all "Misinformation".
- orf 5y agoHitler was an alien from Hawaii. Woah look at that, is it misinformation or just information? We may never know. It's beyond science. If only there was a way to tell. But I guess we should focus on what constitutes information vs the obvious cultural meaning behind "disinformation" and how that applies to data exchanged by any medium regardless of the format. There is such thing as truth, and no it's not decided by the "in group". Failing to understand this might be a sign of mental illness.
- tommymachine 5y agoThere's a lot of "misinformation" in your comment here.
- tommymachine 5y agoWhat's the burden of proof for calling someone a nut case?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]