3 ms·

> What do you count as disinformation I won't get into the argument of "Well then who is the arbiter of truth?" because honestly, I don't have an answer. It c

> What do you count as disinformation I won't get into the argument of "Well then who is the arbiter of truth?" because honestly, I don't have an answer. It can't be the government for obvious reasons, but it also can't be private corporations, and certainly can't be the general public. That leaves...nobody. Maybe a non-profit organization, but even those could easily be corrupted. > and why is it a problem? Nearly 700,000 US deaths from COVID so far, a number that continues to rise due to anti-vax disinformation convincing people to not vaccinate. Disinformation is literally killing people by contributing to the continued spread of a pandemic. It's absolutely insane to me that you would genuinely ask why disinformation is a problem. Just because I don't have a solution to a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. > If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. If this was an effective approach, Tucker Carlson would have been off the air ages ago, QAnon would have been dismissed as a crackpot by everybody, and disinformation wouldn't be a problem.

throwawaysea 5y ago
If you don't mind answering another question, why the hate for Tucker Carlson? I don't follow him but people have complained about him so much that I've now seen a few videos to see what the fuss is about. I didn't see anything wrong within those few clips I saw (maybe an hour's worth) - it didn't seem any different from any other mainstream news in that one side of the argument was being presented, with a lot of conviction. But I did not see misinformation. I am sure there's some non-zero amount of misinformation that can be found from scouring his clips, but that's true for anyone and any source, and I certainly don't think he should be "off air" for it. I can't help but think that a lot of the character attacks against him are simply made because he's a prominent and successful voice on the "other side", and his effectiveness is a risk to political adversaries. As someone who wants to see Tucker Carlson off the air, do you see your position on the matter differently? Are there conservative voices you support being platformed, and what makes them different for you?
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  It's not a good sign when the "News" network you work for has to go to court to argue that no reasonable person would take you seriously.[1] Just over the past year, Carlson has peddled such obvious falsehoods as claiming the COVID-19 vaccines don’t work, the Green New Deal was responsible for Texas’ winter storm power-grid failure, immigrants are making the Potomac River "dirtier and dirtier,” and that there’s no evidence that white supremacists played a role in the violent Jan. 6 Capitol riots. [2] We don't need this guy on the public airwaves. He should get a blog... that is, if he can find a hosting provider who will tolerate his views. 1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-news-tucker-carlson-not-source-of-news-defamation-suit-mcdougal-trump.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-... 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if-im-really-cornered-or-something https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if...
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > one side of the argument was being presented There's a huge difference between "one side of the argument" and simply spewing lies. > But I did not see misinformation. Then you're either not looking and talking in bad faith, or you don't think it's misinformation. I can't decide which is the worse possibility. > Are there conservative voices you support being platformed, and what makes them different for you? I support any conservative voices that stay in reality and don't spew racism and bigotry. You want to cut social programs and cut taxes on the rich? I disagree, but I don't think you should be de-platformed. You want to insist that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous, Jan 6th was a false flag operation by Antifa, and that Biden stole the election? GTFO.
bad_username 5y ago
> Disinformation is literally killing people by contributing to the continued spread of a pandemic. It's absolutely insane to me that you would genuinely ask why disinformation is a problem. I wonder if you ever considered the possibity that not everything that goes against your current beliefs is disinformation.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  I wonder if you ever considered the possibity that not everything that goes against your current beliefs is disinformation. Speaking only for myself, I try to consider such possibilities constantly. Unlike what passes for Trump-era conservatives, I don't like to be wrong. If you correct a mistaken belief of mine, I'll thank you for doing me the favor. Difficulty: Your faith's no good here, nor is your money. You'll need to bring evidence.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I'm open to having my mind changed, but it takes rigorous testing and peer review. I'm not going to have my mind changed by some talking head on the TV or some dude in sunglasses recording a video from his truck. If I got COVID, I'm not going to demand Ivermectin just because Joe Rogan told me to. But you're dodging the issue at hand. COVID has killed nearly 700,000 Americans and over 4.5M people worldwide. Vaccines slow the spread of COVID and are safe. This is all verifiable information. Claims that the vaccine is ineffective or has deadly side-effects are disinformation. Not because I disagree, but because extensive study and peer review points to those claims being false. When you disagree with scientific studies that have undergone extensive peer review, it's not disagreement. You're just wrong.

throwawaysea 5y ago

If you don't mind answering another question, why the hate for Tucker Carlson? I don't follow him but people have complained about him so much that I've now seen a few videos to see what the fuss is about. I didn't see anything wrong within those few clips I saw (maybe an hour's worth) - it didn't seem any different from any other mainstream news in that one side of the argument was being presented, with a lot of conviction. But I did not see misinformation. I am sure there's some non-zero amount of misinformation that can be found from scouring his clips, but that's true for anyone and any source, and I certainly don't think he should be "off air" for it. I can't help but think that a lot of the character attacks against him are simply made because he's a prominent and successful voice on the "other side", and his effectiveness is a risk to political adversaries. As someone who wants to see Tucker Carlson off the air, do you see your position on the matter differently? Are there conservative voices you support being platformed, and what makes them different for you?

CamperBob2 5y ago
It's not a good sign when the "News" network you work for has to go to court to argue that no reasonable person would take you seriously.[1] Just over the past year, Carlson has peddled such obvious falsehoods as claiming the COVID-19 vaccines don’t work, the Green New Deal was responsible for Texas’ winter storm power-grid failure, immigrants are making the Potomac River "dirtier and dirtier,” and that there’s no evidence that white supremacists played a role in the violent Jan. 6 Capitol riots. [2] We don't need this guy on the public airwaves. He should get a blog... that is, if he can find a hosting provider who will tolerate his views. 1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-news-tucker-carlson-not-source-of-news-defamation-suit-mcdougal-trump.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-... 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if-im-really-cornered-or-something https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if...
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
> one side of the argument was being presented There's a huge difference between "one side of the argument" and simply spewing lies. > But I did not see misinformation. Then you're either not looking and talking in bad faith, or you don't think it's misinformation. I can't decide which is the worse possibility. > Are there conservative voices you support being platformed, and what makes them different for you? I support any conservative voices that stay in reality and don't spew racism and bigotry. You want to cut social programs and cut taxes on the rich? I disagree, but I don't think you should be de-platformed. You want to insist that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous, Jan 6th was a false flag operation by Antifa, and that Biden stole the election? GTFO.

bad_username 5y ago

> Disinformation is literally killing people by contributing to the continued spread of a pandemic. It's absolutely insane to me that you would genuinely ask why disinformation is a problem. I wonder if you ever considered the possibity that not everything that goes against your current beliefs is disinformation.

CamperBob2 5y ago
I wonder if you ever considered the possibity that not everything that goes against your current beliefs is disinformation. Speaking only for myself, I try to consider such possibilities constantly. Unlike what passes for Trump-era conservatives, I don't like to be wrong. If you correct a mistaken belief of mine, I'll thank you for doing me the favor. Difficulty: Your faith's no good here, nor is your money. You'll need to bring evidence.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
I'm open to having my mind changed, but it takes rigorous testing and peer review. I'm not going to have my mind changed by some talking head on the TV or some dude in sunglasses recording a video from his truck. If I got COVID, I'm not going to demand Ivermectin just because Joe Rogan told me to. But you're dodging the issue at hand. COVID has killed nearly 700,000 Americans and over 4.5M people worldwide. Vaccines slow the spread of COVID and are safe. This is all verifiable information. Claims that the vaccine is ineffective or has deadly side-effects are disinformation. Not because I disagree, but because extensive study and peer review points to those claims being false. When you disagree with scientific studies that have undergone extensive peer review, it's not disagreement. You're just wrong.