5 ms·

“Misinformation” appears to be a term used by people who don’t want to take on the burden of proof when accusing someone of lying.

by Tycho 5y ago

ILMostro7 5y ago
Some people refuse to look at the truth. Then again, it should be assumed that a random person, more often than not, actually cared and spent some time thinking or learning what most people take to be true. Throwing conspiracy theories to see what sticks is a lazy form of destructive behavior. Pointing fingers at people who don't explicitly disprove your claims, whether or not you know them to be true, is just a continuation of the same.
hobomatic 5y ago
To me it seems like they are a pot calling the kettle brown so as to divert attention from the fact that their own blackness is the larger offense. 'these guys are just stupid' as they engage in overt deception and manipulation to even make such an accusation.
gorwell 5y ago
When you hear the word `misinformation`, you can generally substitute with `wrongthink`. It makes much more sense that way.
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  I dunno about that. Thought experiment: The Earth is a flat disc. Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both? To be sure it's a vague term applied quite continuously online but simply deflecting it as actually meaning "wrongthink" is disingenuous. There's a lot of misinformation being spread specifically about objective measurable facts. It is simultaneously true that a lot of opinions are being mislabeled as misinformation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 5y ago
    > The Earth is a flat disc. > Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both? You missed the fourth option: it's neither. No-one would call it misinformation or wrongthink; rather it's false, or a lie if you're feeling judgemental. I think the person you replied to has made a good point.
    - lariati 5y ago
      Noise?
    - SquareWheel 5y ago
      What if I show you a heavily biased paper in a quack journal with impressive-looking graphs that shows the earth is a flat disc? Is this misinformation? Most people will not have the experience to discern things like p-hacking and massaged numbers. Having experts call these things out as misinformation seems quite useful to me.
      - lmm 5y ago
        > What if I show you a heavily biased paper in a quack journal with impressive-looking graphs that shows the earth is a flat disc? Is this misinformation? Maybe. I've not heard people calling "misinformation" in cases like that though.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    I find that most complaints about 'misinformation' are rooted in ideological conformity rather than truth. Like most buzzwords, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have an objective definition, but it does mean you should closely examine the motivations of those who are loudest about it.
  - kevin_b_er 5y ago
    The firehose of falsehoods relies on this. The liar can produce 10 lies and demands you disprove them or they are somehow true. The burden of the liar proving their reasoning is missing. The goal is that their opinion and your fact be treated with equal weight or the opinion has greater weight simply because they can produce more "opinions" more often than you can facts.
    - UncleOxidant 5y ago
      Yes, this. John Green mentioned in his vlog several months ago that he was not going to be answering antivax objections anymore because doing so was becoming a fulltime job and he has other work to do. This is the burden that deliberate misinformation is trying to impose: flood the zone with factual-seeming counter information, provide "data" (generally cherry-picked or out of context) to back it up and demand that it must be addressed. This is the antivax playbook. At it's worst flooding the zone with misinformation is designed to cause the populace to tire of the debate and give up trying to determine what the actual truth is.
      - tstrimple 5y ago
        > flood the zone with factual-seeming counter information, provide "data" (generally cherry-picked or out of context) to back it up and demand that it must be addressed. This is also referred to as Gish Gallop and relies heavily on the bullshit asymmetry principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
        UncleOxidant 5y ago
        "named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution." Interesting that there seems to be a lot of overlap between creationists and antivaxers. Creationists seem to buy into a sort of conspiratorial view of science where they claim that their "creation scientists" are purposely ignored by mainstream science which is in the grip of some kind of delusion so that they can't comprehend that creationism is the way or are in fact actively trying to subvert the idea that creationism is actually true. Extrapolate to vaccines and they easily believe that there's some kind of alternative science that hasn't been corrupted, but isn't widely known. Similar overlaps for denying climate change.
  - adolph 5y ago
    > The Earth is a flat disc. > Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both? Neither. It is an assertion based on a frame of reference. The mapping systems used on my phone don't often describe geographic topography and so assert a flatness to the surface of this planet. Likewise this planet viewed from its moon would have the visual appearance of a disk. Is "The Earth is a flat disc" a helpful explanation for operating in the world? Not if you are a rocket scientist but it isn't a terrible model if you live an entire life within the vicinity of your family farm. “All models are wrong, but some are useful”. George E. P. Box https://www.lacan.upc.edu/admoreWeb/2018/05/all-models-are-wrong-but-some-are-useful-george-e-p-box/ https://www.lacan.upc.edu/admoreWeb/2018/05/all-models-are-w...
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
I think it is more useful to describe the situations where: - accusing someone of lying has no restraining impact on the person or the lie, and indeed where it might have a magnifying effect or - the lie is being shared by someone who has been lied to and does not know it; they aren't a liar but they are misinformers. Calling the "Covid hasn't even been isolated" misinformation a lie, for example, requires knowing that the teller is aware they are lying. They could simply be credulous.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > accusing someone of lying has no restraining impact on the person or the lie Should an accusation alone have that effect?
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    No -- but I take your point. I meant "with evidence" here. The point is, many lies are a particular kind of bad faith. You can point out to the guy who, say, believes Antoine Béchamp is the last word in medicine, that he is misrepresenting Béchamp in the past, let alone misrepresenting science in the present, and that guy will argue that it is the very predictable pattern of your fact-based attempt to disprove him that is evidence of your perfidy. When you know that person is making that argument knowing it to be false, there is no point in accusing them. The only thing you can do is tackle the "alternative facts" as misinformation rather than as an attempt to deceive. Because those who argue in bad faith claim injury in bad faith too. "Misinformation" is a more dispassionate approach.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
That seems like a dangerous generalization that someone can use to hand-wave away any actual misinformation, which as the blog mentions, does exist and is spread (albeit by a small percentage of very prolific posters). Misinformation exists, and it is a problem. At this point we've seen some evidence that state actors put some of it out there during the 2016/2020 elections, and it can be spread organically. That said, it's not nearly as widespread or problematic as it's made to be by much of popular media.
twa999 5y ago
"missing context, misleading" you just got fact checked
lariati 5y ago
If we follow the science then what does "misinformation" mean in an information theory context? It has no meaning at all. Since it basically has no meaning it does make it quite a good word in a propaganda context. We can make this word mean whatever we want. It is a shame we don't use the concept of noise or a noisy channel in a wider context.
ebiester 5y ago
How do you take on the burden of proof to prove that high ranking US officials were not involved in an organized child-sex ring involving various pizza restaurants? Or any of the various other QAnon work.
- adolph 5y ago
  > How do you take on the burden of proof to prove that high ranking US officials were not involved in an organized child-sex ring involving various pizza restaurants? Especially after Epstein. Why would they bother with the pizza business? I guess to add some theory to the conspiracy?

“Misinformation” appears to be a term used by people who don’t want to take on the burden of proof when accusing someone of lying.

by Tycho 5y ago

“Misinformation” appears to be a term used by people who don’t want to take on the burden of proof when accusing someone of lying.

ILMostro7 5y ago

Some people refuse to look at the truth. Then again, it should be assumed that a random person, more often than not, actually cared and spent some time thinking or learning what most people take to be true. Throwing conspiracy theories to see what sticks is a lazy form of destructive behavior. Pointing fingers at people who don't explicitly disprove your claims, whether or not you know them to be true, is just a continuation of the same.

hobomatic 5y ago

To me it seems like they are a pot calling the kettle brown so as to divert attention from the fact that their own blackness is the larger offense. 'these guys are just stupid' as they engage in overt deception and manipulation to even make such an accusation.

gorwell 5y ago

When you hear the word `misinformation`, you can generally substitute with `wrongthink`. It makes much more sense that way.

BeefWellington 5y ago
I dunno about that. Thought experiment: The Earth is a flat disc. Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both? To be sure it's a vague term applied quite continuously online but simply deflecting it as actually meaning "wrongthink" is disingenuous. There's a lot of misinformation being spread specifically about objective measurable facts. It is simultaneously true that a lot of opinions are being mislabeled as misinformation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 5y ago
  > The Earth is a flat disc. > Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both? You missed the fourth option: it's neither. No-one would call it misinformation or wrongthink; rather it's false, or a lie if you're feeling judgemental. I think the person you replied to has made a good point.
  - lariati 5y ago
    Noise?
  - SquareWheel 5y ago
    What if I show you a heavily biased paper in a quack journal with impressive-looking graphs that shows the earth is a flat disc? Is this misinformation? Most people will not have the experience to discern things like p-hacking and massaged numbers. Having experts call these things out as misinformation seems quite useful to me.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > What if I show you a heavily biased paper in a quack journal with impressive-looking graphs that shows the earth is a flat disc? Is this misinformation? Maybe. I've not heard people calling "misinformation" in cases like that though.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  I find that most complaints about 'misinformation' are rooted in ideological conformity rather than truth. Like most buzzwords, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have an objective definition, but it does mean you should closely examine the motivations of those who are loudest about it.
- kevin_b_er 5y ago
  The firehose of falsehoods relies on this. The liar can produce 10 lies and demands you disprove them or they are somehow true. The burden of the liar proving their reasoning is missing. The goal is that their opinion and your fact be treated with equal weight or the opinion has greater weight simply because they can produce more "opinions" more often than you can facts.
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    Yes, this. John Green mentioned in his vlog several months ago that he was not going to be answering antivax objections anymore because doing so was becoming a fulltime job and he has other work to do. This is the burden that deliberate misinformation is trying to impose: flood the zone with factual-seeming counter information, provide "data" (generally cherry-picked or out of context) to back it up and demand that it must be addressed. This is the antivax playbook. At it's worst flooding the zone with misinformation is designed to cause the populace to tire of the debate and give up trying to determine what the actual truth is.
    - tstrimple 5y ago
      > flood the zone with factual-seeming counter information, provide "data" (generally cherry-picked or out of context) to back it up and demand that it must be addressed. This is also referred to as Gish Gallop and relies heavily on the bullshit asymmetry principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
      - UncleOxidant 5y ago
        "named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution." Interesting that there seems to be a lot of overlap between creationists and antivaxers. Creationists seem to buy into a sort of conspiratorial view of science where they claim that their "creation scientists" are purposely ignored by mainstream science which is in the grip of some kind of delusion so that they can't comprehend that creationism is the way or are in fact actively trying to subvert the idea that creationism is actually true. Extrapolate to vaccines and they easily believe that there's some kind of alternative science that hasn't been corrupted, but isn't widely known. Similar overlaps for denying climate change.
- adolph 5y ago
  > The Earth is a flat disc. > Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both? Neither. It is an assertion based on a frame of reference. The mapping systems used on my phone don't often describe geographic topography and so assert a flatness to the surface of this planet. Likewise this planet viewed from its moon would have the visual appearance of a disk. Is "The Earth is a flat disc" a helpful explanation for operating in the world? Not if you are a rocket scientist but it isn't a terrible model if you live an entire life within the vicinity of your family farm. “All models are wrong, but some are useful”. George E. P. Box https://www.lacan.upc.edu/admoreWeb/2018/05/all-models-are-wrong-but-some-are-useful-george-e-p-box/ https://www.lacan.upc.edu/admoreWeb/2018/05/all-models-are-w...

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

I think it is more useful to describe the situations where: - accusing someone of lying has no restraining impact on the person or the lie, and indeed where it might have a magnifying effect or - the lie is being shared by someone who has been lied to and does not know it; they aren't a liar but they are misinformers. Calling the "Covid hasn't even been isolated" misinformation a lie, for example, requires knowing that the teller is aware they are lying. They could simply be credulous.

brigandish 5y ago
> accusing someone of lying has no restraining impact on the person or the lie Should an accusation alone have that effect?
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  No -- but I take your point. I meant "with evidence" here. The point is, many lies are a particular kind of bad faith. You can point out to the guy who, say, believes Antoine Béchamp is the last word in medicine, that he is misrepresenting Béchamp in the past, let alone misrepresenting science in the present, and that guy will argue that it is the very predictable pattern of your fact-based attempt to disprove him that is evidence of your perfidy. When you know that person is making that argument knowing it to be false, there is no point in accusing them. The only thing you can do is tackle the "alternative facts" as misinformation rather than as an attempt to deceive. Because those who argue in bad faith claim injury in bad faith too. "Misinformation" is a more dispassionate approach.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

That seems like a dangerous generalization that someone can use to hand-wave away any actual misinformation, which as the blog mentions, does exist and is spread (albeit by a small percentage of very prolific posters). Misinformation exists, and it is a problem. At this point we've seen some evidence that state actors put some of it out there during the 2016/2020 elections, and it can be spread organically. That said, it's not nearly as widespread or problematic as it's made to be by much of popular media.

twa999 5y ago

"missing context, misleading" you just got fact checked

lariati 5y ago

If we follow the science then what does "misinformation" mean in an information theory context? It has no meaning at all. Since it basically has no meaning it does make it quite a good word in a propaganda context. We can make this word mean whatever we want. It is a shame we don't use the concept of noise or a noisy channel in a wider context.

ebiester 5y ago

How do you take on the burden of proof to prove that high ranking US officials were not involved in an organized child-sex ring involving various pizza restaurants? Or any of the various other QAnon work.

adolph 5y ago
> How do you take on the burden of proof to prove that high ranking US officials were not involved in an organized child-sex ring involving various pizza restaurants? Especially after Epstein. Why would they bother with the pizza business? I guess to add some theory to the conspiracy?