4 ms·

Arguably targeting the highest profile spreaders of misinformation and disinformation has the greatest impact, independent of the specific information.

ComradePhil 5y ago
Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation", specially when it is about something that we definitely don't know enough about?
- alkonaut 5y ago
  That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t consensus. More importantly it’s those areas where there is a time critical aspect to the misinformation or disinformation. Something that makes the idea of “hearing all opinions” not viable. Things that come to mind include “polls won’t open until tomorrow” (on Election Day). Or, in this case, medical information.
  - aksss 5y ago
    There's always a convenient excuse for censorship. Who defines "worse horseshit" today? Tomorrow? Show me the information and I'll find an excuse. A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express it. Hard for me to imagine scenarios where this doesn't satisfy requirements. If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave, unless you are advocating a 'ministry of information' scenario where conversations need to pre-approval to be aired - I would assume you would not advocate for such a thing, in principle.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      > If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express Absolutely. I don’t think we are arguing freedom of speech here. > If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave Is the fact that it’s futile a good reason to say that obvious fraud should not be removed on sight? > A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). That’s the bar for the law. Obviously the bar for anyone such as a broadcaster can be set at that point or lower. A company has to follow the law obviously but here the question is probably what to employees, prospective employees, customers, investors etc feel. The company adds up the numbers and decides who to include in their platform. Because it’s important to keep in mind that companies promote a select few voices on a platform. They don’t censor away an uncomfortable voice. They chose not to be the megaphone. I’m not sure what the alternative is to the situation we are seeing? Forcing platforms to give everyone a voice? There will always be arbitrary moderation and association in free media. Because it’s part of what free media is. We can’t have a free press without self-censorship.
      - aksss 5y ago
        > I don't think we're arguing free speech "Free speech" is being progressively constrained to prevent "offense" and attacked with the murky dog whistle of "misinformation" or disloyalty (most commonly Russian agency), causing a national debate in the process. > should not be removed on sight? I just meant that 'on sight' is often too late to be any more effective than legal action for the Election Day example you gave. The prospective "damage" we risk in most cases that we hear stories about today is highly debatable (next point). > Alternative to the situation we're seeing We would need to agree on the situation "we" are seeing before focusing too much on solutions. I see outsized and misplaced risk intolerance. Indeed, intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions. The rapidity with which (ex-CIA now state department) spokesman Ned Price started accusing AP reporter Matt Lee of disloyalty a few days ago is pretty shocking and gross. But that's our reality right now. > We can't have a free press without self-censorship I think I very much disagree with this, but may not be understanding the statement. When you say "self" censorship, does that mean you and I showing restraint (systemically unreliable), or (industry collaboration with) a centralized institution (as in the royal "We") which would not be 'self-censorship' by definition? I think you can have free press without institutional censorship as long as we aren't speaking in complete absolutes and are acknowledging a place for the rule of law. Why? We've been modeling it pretty well for a while, and while everyone imagines the times they are living in are unprecedented, this country has faced far worse crises and managed to hold on to some bedrock principles unique to its model of government (delegated powers and inalienable rights of the people). What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I know of a few reporters making the case that we can never compete with China unless we become effectively more 'totalitarian' ourselves. I dismiss the reasoning out of hand entirely. I've heard some other reasons revolving around danger and offense but very wooly and inarticulate definitions/constraints that makes me think risk outweighs reward by a large margin.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t consensus. I think there's a gray area: minority scientific position that's being hyped by a faction for political reasons (e.g. a faction that's cherry picking outlier studies for the sole reason that they support their pre-existing policy preferences). Now some might argue that "both sides" do that, and to a degree they might be right. However, I think there's another heuristic that helps avoid paralysis due to that: if both sides aren't trying to solve the problem in good faith, pick the one that is, and reject the one that's just reacting against proposed solutions.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    > That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. Joe Rogan is primarily being attacked for bringing in Dr. Peter McCallaugh. Name one thing that he has said that is "misinformation".
- okl 5y ago
  > Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation" Find out if/why the experts are justified to hold their respective opinion, evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion. Just because someone says something does not make it true. Regardless if that person is an expert or not.
  - aksss 5y ago
    I agree with your approach if it's us as individuals making the evaluation, but if it's some centralized authority (even the private/public censorship arrangement as we have now) "clearing" allowable conversation in the public sphere, then would completely disagree. Free and open dialog is a hill to die on. One of those political principles that is, for me, more important than any 'safety' or conformity benefit claimed from censorship. I confess to being a bit gobsmacked that this is even a debate in the U.S., for as many times as it's been had and litigated in the past.
    - okl 5y ago
      Oh sure, I don't support that. I would love to see people reward quality information instead of sentational infotainment with their "clicks" but alas that's not the world we're living in. -- What to do?
jimmyjazz14 5y ago
I don't know if that's true, attempts to censor information tends to lend credibility to those being censored.
redisman 5y ago
What impact? He’ll literally peace out with his $100M back to YouTube and free aggregators like Apple with much larger reach. He’s also the most popular podcast! So he wont have any problems finding a new network if need be. These people are delusional if they think they can change anything
aksss 5y ago
Does that include governments? Or is there no objective standard -- the mis/disinformation is whatever the (local/state/federal) government is not currently supporting? It's obviously a slippery slope approaching censorship this way. Mis/disinformation should not be conceived of as skeptical questioning that may lead to dumb people making bad choices. That's a level of second-guessing and faux-benign concern that cannot guide policies of censorship. Skeptical questioning, dialog, and debate is more beneficial for society than it is dangerous to dumb people (who are high-risk even without overhearing the speculative conversations of others). There is some level of acceptable risk, whether it's vehicular traffic, or allowing people to speak their mind. Think about the societal product of ten years living where skepticism of government is effectively outlawed vs a government routinely subjected to open skepticism. I think the latter is a stronger society.

ComradePhil 5y ago

Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation", specially when it is about something that we definitely don't know enough about?

alkonaut 5y ago
That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t consensus. More importantly it’s those areas where there is a time critical aspect to the misinformation or disinformation. Something that makes the idea of “hearing all opinions” not viable. Things that come to mind include “polls won’t open until tomorrow” (on Election Day). Or, in this case, medical information.
- aksss 5y ago
  There's always a convenient excuse for censorship. Who defines "worse horseshit" today? Tomorrow? Show me the information and I'll find an excuse. A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express it. Hard for me to imagine scenarios where this doesn't satisfy requirements. If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave, unless you are advocating a 'ministry of information' scenario where conversations need to pre-approval to be aired - I would assume you would not advocate for such a thing, in principle.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express Absolutely. I don’t think we are arguing freedom of speech here. > If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave Is the fact that it’s futile a good reason to say that obvious fraud should not be removed on sight? > A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). That’s the bar for the law. Obviously the bar for anyone such as a broadcaster can be set at that point or lower. A company has to follow the law obviously but here the question is probably what to employees, prospective employees, customers, investors etc feel. The company adds up the numbers and decides who to include in their platform. Because it’s important to keep in mind that companies promote a select few voices on a platform. They don’t censor away an uncomfortable voice. They chose not to be the megaphone. I’m not sure what the alternative is to the situation we are seeing? Forcing platforms to give everyone a voice? There will always be arbitrary moderation and association in free media. Because it’s part of what free media is. We can’t have a free press without self-censorship.
    - aksss 5y ago
      > I don't think we're arguing free speech "Free speech" is being progressively constrained to prevent "offense" and attacked with the murky dog whistle of "misinformation" or disloyalty (most commonly Russian agency), causing a national debate in the process. > should not be removed on sight? I just meant that 'on sight' is often too late to be any more effective than legal action for the Election Day example you gave. The prospective "damage" we risk in most cases that we hear stories about today is highly debatable (next point). > Alternative to the situation we're seeing We would need to agree on the situation "we" are seeing before focusing too much on solutions. I see outsized and misplaced risk intolerance. Indeed, intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions. The rapidity with which (ex-CIA now state department) spokesman Ned Price started accusing AP reporter Matt Lee of disloyalty a few days ago is pretty shocking and gross. But that's our reality right now. > We can't have a free press without self-censorship I think I very much disagree with this, but may not be understanding the statement. When you say "self" censorship, does that mean you and I showing restraint (systemically unreliable), or (industry collaboration with) a centralized institution (as in the royal "We") which would not be 'self-censorship' by definition? I think you can have free press without institutional censorship as long as we aren't speaking in complete absolutes and are acknowledging a place for the rule of law. Why? We've been modeling it pretty well for a while, and while everyone imagines the times they are living in are unprecedented, this country has faced far worse crises and managed to hold on to some bedrock principles unique to its model of government (delegated powers and inalienable rights of the people). What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I know of a few reporters making the case that we can never compete with China unless we become effectively more 'totalitarian' ourselves. I dismiss the reasoning out of hand entirely. I've heard some other reasons revolving around danger and offense but very wooly and inarticulate definitions/constraints that makes me think risk outweighs reward by a large margin.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t consensus. I think there's a gray area: minority scientific position that's being hyped by a faction for political reasons (e.g. a faction that's cherry picking outlier studies for the sole reason that they support their pre-existing policy preferences). Now some might argue that "both sides" do that, and to a degree they might be right. However, I think there's another heuristic that helps avoid paralysis due to that: if both sides aren't trying to solve the problem in good faith, pick the one that is, and reject the one that's just reacting against proposed solutions.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  > That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. Joe Rogan is primarily being attacked for bringing in Dr. Peter McCallaugh. Name one thing that he has said that is "misinformation".
okl 5y ago
> Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation" Find out if/why the experts are justified to hold their respective opinion, evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion. Just because someone says something does not make it true. Regardless if that person is an expert or not.
- aksss 5y ago
  I agree with your approach if it's us as individuals making the evaluation, but if it's some centralized authority (even the private/public censorship arrangement as we have now) "clearing" allowable conversation in the public sphere, then would completely disagree. Free and open dialog is a hill to die on. One of those political principles that is, for me, more important than any 'safety' or conformity benefit claimed from censorship. I confess to being a bit gobsmacked that this is even a debate in the U.S., for as many times as it's been had and litigated in the past.
  - okl 5y ago
    Oh sure, I don't support that. I would love to see people reward quality information instead of sentational infotainment with their "clicks" but alas that's not the world we're living in. -- What to do?

jimmyjazz14 5y ago

I don't know if that's true, attempts to censor information tends to lend credibility to those being censored.

redisman 5y ago

What impact? He’ll literally peace out with his $100M back to YouTube and free aggregators like Apple with much larger reach. He’s also the most popular podcast! So he wont have any problems finding a new network if need be. These people are delusional if they think they can change anything

aksss 5y ago

Does that include governments? Or is there no objective standard -- the mis/disinformation is whatever the (local/state/federal) government is not currently supporting? It's obviously a slippery slope approaching censorship this way. Mis/disinformation should not be conceived of as skeptical questioning that may lead to dumb people making bad choices. That's a level of second-guessing and faux-benign concern that cannot guide policies of censorship. Skeptical questioning, dialog, and debate is more beneficial for society than it is dangerous to dumb people (who are high-risk even without overhearing the speculative conversations of others). There is some level of acceptable risk, whether it's vehicular traffic, or allowing people to speak their mind. Think about the societal product of ten years living where skepticism of government is effectively outlawed vs a government routinely subjected to open skepticism. I think the latter is a stronger society.