3 ms·

<< You can totally police misinformation in a fair means by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argue

<< You can totally police misinformation in a fair means by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argues, and explain to those who are policed in a transparent manner why and how they can appeal it. If, and I do mean if, you can consistently define misinformation. The issue is that, not unlike porn, 'i know it, when i see it' approach to identification is not a great way to gather trust of people you want to impose that upon.

reincarnate0x14 5y ago
> by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argues The people saying various vaccines result in significantly better outcomes and shorter infections from SARS have millions of man-hours of testing and evidence backing that up. Anyone can watch a boat come up over the horizon with the top visible and reproducibly verify the earth is, at the very least, curved. That's the opposite of "I know it when I see it." Arguing over favorite colors has no material impact on anyone. Loudly proclaiming incendiary medical statements on public forums very obviously has had massive impact, and if you can't back it up, that's misinformation even if by astronomical luck it's accidentally correct. This is exactly why professionals and other serious people give measured, complex answers to questions that don't translate well to in-group signaling grifter gear, and exactly why we need some sort of brakes on the countervailing screeching of slogans on the other side because that train zooms out of the station and picks up idiot passengers left and right before the people who know what they're talking about can finish a sentence. This isn't hypothetical. We've been watching it happen for decades.