5 ms·

Exactly. They act like they are the "authority" when most of their initial statements were wrong. It's understandable to be wrong because no one knew much about

Exactly. They act like they are the "authority" when most of their initial statements were wrong. It's understandable to be wrong because no one knew much about this virus at first, and everyone, including the ones that were proven right, was making guesses. But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting.

jimmydorry 5y ago
Labelling is one thing (putting a warning underneath posts with the current understanding of a given topic), but the step too far (in my opinion) was the silencing and deplatforming by way of removing posts and banning users. No company should have unfettered control over the metaphorical "town square" to control population-level discourse.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Ahhhh, it's not a town square. It's Mordor, the panopticon. And we're just a horde of orcs wondering when meat's back on the menu.
  - ngc248 5y ago
    We are in fact the meat.
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      Actually, there's a totally apt device in LOTR already: the palantíri. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri Except instead of there being only seven, Sauron mass-produced them and now everyone has one, maybe two. Hardly nobody even meets at the Prancing Pony anymore, at least without a palantíri call first.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Then the "town square" would become completely overrun with hateful people yelling falsehoods through microphones. Normal people would avoid the "town square" like the plague.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    I agree. But wait until you have rational thoughts that get you banned and deplatformed for “misinformation”. I didn’t think it would ever happen to me until it did… there is definitely a balance between keeping toxic crap off a forum and labeling everything the admins happen to disagree with as “misinformation”
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      What specifically did you say that got you banned?
      - spookthesunset 5y ago
        Posting public data from the county Covid dashboard. “It’s dangerous” I was told.
        JetAlone 5y ago
        The most concise word for that is not misinformation, it's malinformation; true information spread with an intent to cause harm. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2F200706_global_twitter_fig4.png&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... It's fine because you didn't intend to harm anyone, but now that you know it's dangerous, if you kept spreading that public data, we would know you intended harm and your behaviour would be rightly considered malinformation. That would be double plus bad.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    People of the past would consider our crowded city town spaces completely overrun. I can't speak for your specific locality, but when I go to mine, I always see that there are several people with a microphone proselytising or screaming about the end of the world. Perspective changes over time, and I have no doubt that the "town squares" will adapt into forms unrecognizable to those of us alive now, but to simply throw our hands up in the air a cede all control of public discourse to unaccountable entities is an abhorent thought.
Overtonwindow 5y ago
Hrm reminds me of government.
jayd16 5y ago
>But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting. Is it though? If someone makes an unfounded guess and states it as fact isn't it fair to call that misinformation even if that turns out to be correct? What would be your preferred approach?
- leetcrew 5y ago
  how about not calling anything misinformation until you're pretty damn sure you're right yourself?
  - diffeomorphism 5y ago
    No, that is a complete overreaction. You can still call out "aliens did it" or other obvious nonsense.
    - janto 5y ago
      Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. When the opinion turns out correct are you going to continue making those categorization errors? What lead to that mistake in the first place?
      - diffeomorphism 5y ago
        > Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. You made a category error by somehow replacing "opinions which are obvious nonsense" with "any dissenting opinion whatsoever". Nobody but you suggested that. The claim was that you cannot say anything at all about any "dissenting opinion" unless you are 100% sure you are correct. That is nonsense. You can obviously say something about some of them, while not being confident enough to rule out some others.
        janto 5y ago
        What do you do with opinions that you think are wrong? Do you place them all in an "obviously nonsense" category and slap a misinformation sticker on it so others are not tempted to look at it? Because that is what happened here. What do you do when it turns out some of those things were true? Do you continue to curate the world with willful blindness?

jimmydorry 5y ago

Labelling is one thing (putting a warning underneath posts with the current understanding of a given topic), but the step too far (in my opinion) was the silencing and deplatforming by way of removing posts and banning users. No company should have unfettered control over the metaphorical "town square" to control population-level discourse.

JetAlone 5y ago
Ahhhh, it's not a town square. It's Mordor, the panopticon. And we're just a horde of orcs wondering when meat's back on the menu.
- ngc248 5y ago
  We are in fact the meat.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Actually, there's a totally apt device in LOTR already: the palantíri. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri Except instead of there being only seven, Sauron mass-produced them and now everyone has one, maybe two. Hardly nobody even meets at the Prancing Pony anymore, at least without a palantíri call first.
seattle_spring 5y ago
Then the "town square" would become completely overrun with hateful people yelling falsehoods through microphones. Normal people would avoid the "town square" like the plague.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  I agree. But wait until you have rational thoughts that get you banned and deplatformed for “misinformation”. I didn’t think it would ever happen to me until it did… there is definitely a balance between keeping toxic crap off a forum and labeling everything the admins happen to disagree with as “misinformation”
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    What specifically did you say that got you banned?
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      Posting public data from the county Covid dashboard. “It’s dangerous” I was told.
      - JetAlone 5y ago
        The most concise word for that is not misinformation, it's malinformation; true information spread with an intent to cause harm. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2F200706_global_twitter_fig4.png&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... It's fine because you didn't intend to harm anyone, but now that you know it's dangerous, if you kept spreading that public data, we would know you intended harm and your behaviour would be rightly considered malinformation. That would be double plus bad.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  People of the past would consider our crowded city town spaces completely overrun. I can't speak for your specific locality, but when I go to mine, I always see that there are several people with a microphone proselytising or screaming about the end of the world. Perspective changes over time, and I have no doubt that the "town squares" will adapt into forms unrecognizable to those of us alive now, but to simply throw our hands up in the air a cede all control of public discourse to unaccountable entities is an abhorent thought.

Overtonwindow 5y ago

Hrm reminds me of government.

jayd16 5y ago

>But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting. Is it though? If someone makes an unfounded guess and states it as fact isn't it fair to call that misinformation even if that turns out to be correct? What would be your preferred approach?

leetcrew 5y ago
how about not calling anything misinformation until you're pretty damn sure you're right yourself?
- diffeomorphism 5y ago
  No, that is a complete overreaction. You can still call out "aliens did it" or other obvious nonsense.
  - janto 5y ago
    Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. When the opinion turns out correct are you going to continue making those categorization errors? What lead to that mistake in the first place?
    - diffeomorphism 5y ago
      > Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. You made a category error by somehow replacing "opinions which are obvious nonsense" with "any dissenting opinion whatsoever". Nobody but you suggested that. The claim was that you cannot say anything at all about any "dissenting opinion" unless you are 100% sure you are correct. That is nonsense. You can obviously say something about some of them, while not being confident enough to rule out some others.
      - janto 5y ago
        What do you do with opinions that you think are wrong? Do you place them all in an "obviously nonsense" category and slap a misinformation sticker on it so others are not tempted to look at it? Because that is what happened here. What do you do when it turns out some of those things were true? Do you continue to curate the world with willful blindness?