5 ms·

> it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them How could this possibly

> it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them How could this possibly be true. If that were the case then you could simply lie to a person until they accept a more reasonable position. Instead of using facts and evidence to support your position just lie to them and make stuff up. The fact that you cling to evidence in your arguments (I assume) means you don't really believe lying will sway people to your perspective. > We've seen this exact thing play out on every social network. We haven't. It may be true but that data is not available to us. These could be bots, they could be new converts (with the old ones de-converting), they could be paid propagandists, or trolls. It could just be the algorithm promoting people who create engagement. These people could be incredibly rare but incredibly prominent on the platform. When are you going to be affected by this theory? Are you swayed by lies and misinformation? Do you cling to beliefs in the face of fact and evidence? Are you undeserving of the right to speak because of it? Why should you have been allowed to leave this comment? You have not been vetted to make these statements.

tablespoon 4y ago
>> it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them > How could this possibly be true. If that were the case then you could simply lie to a person until they accept a more reasonable position. Instead of using facts and evidence to support your position just lie to them and make stuff up. The fact that you cling to evidence in your arguments (I assume) means you don't really believe lying will sway people to your perspective. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone is willing to play the same ends-justify-the-means game, where they're OK with shamelessly lying if it can momentarily get someone to align with their faction. What the GP describes is only a dilemma if you have a commitment to the truth. Also what you describe (counter cheap lies with more cheap lies), would actually play into the hand of a disinformation actor. In many cases they're not looking to persuade anyone of of anything, just increase confusion, cynicism, and disengagement; which reduce their adversary's capacity for making decisions and taking action.
- stickyricky 4y ago
  You have reduced my capacity for action and I am disengaging from this conversation. Because of this thread I no longer recognize Plate Tectonics and now believe in Expanding Earth Theory.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > You have reduced my capacity for action and I am disengaging from this conversation. Because of this thread I no longer recognize Plate Tectonics and now believe in Expanding Earth Theory. That didn't come off as clever, BTW.
RHSeeger 4y ago
To give a minor example of this... You want to get people to vote for your candidate. So you create social media posts saying the opponent voted against funds that would go to veterans. You don't need to look anything up, you just need to create the post. It's almost certainly true, because EVERY candidate has done this. However, it's extremely misleading... Your opponent wants to make sure people understand the truth. The truth is that there were several bills that would fund veterans with a small amount of money, but they were all "add-ons" to other bills that did major things that the candidate did not approve of (for example, something like saying no state may provide a drivers license to anyone that is an ex-con). Now, in order make sure people understand the truth, you have to find the cases where the candidate in question voted against money for veterans, explain what the situation behind it was, and why there was "something bigger to consider" in each case. Vs you, who only had to create a simple post. The level of effort is in no way balanced.
- stickyricky 4y ago
  > When are you going to be affected by this theory? Are you swayed by lies and misinformation? Do you cling to beliefs in the face of fact and evidence? Are you undeserving of the right to speak because of it?
  - RHSeeger 4y ago
    I am generally not affected by this type of lie/misinformation, because I specifically look for it. That's not to say I'm never affected by it, just that I keep an eye out for that type of thing. But I know for a fact that people I know and care about _are_ affected by it, and on a regular basis. Plus it's used to sway people I don't know, and those people vote. And I find it concerning that they will base their vote on incorrect information.
    - prottog 4y ago
      Being worried that they will base their vote on incorrect information is really, really close to being worried that they will vote incorrectly, period. Very few things in politics are so cut and dry that there's one "correct" fact.

tablespoon 4y ago

>> it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them > How could this possibly be true. If that were the case then you could simply lie to a person until they accept a more reasonable position. Instead of using facts and evidence to support your position just lie to them and make stuff up. The fact that you cling to evidence in your arguments (I assume) means you don't really believe lying will sway people to your perspective. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone is willing to play the same ends-justify-the-means game, where they're OK with shamelessly lying if it can momentarily get someone to align with their faction. What the GP describes is only a dilemma if you have a commitment to the truth. Also what you describe (counter cheap lies with more cheap lies), would actually play into the hand of a disinformation actor. In many cases they're not looking to persuade anyone of of anything, just increase confusion, cynicism, and disengagement; which reduce their adversary's capacity for making decisions and taking action.

stickyricky 4y ago
You have reduced my capacity for action and I am disengaging from this conversation. Because of this thread I no longer recognize Plate Tectonics and now believe in Expanding Earth Theory.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > You have reduced my capacity for action and I am disengaging from this conversation. Because of this thread I no longer recognize Plate Tectonics and now believe in Expanding Earth Theory. That didn't come off as clever, BTW.

RHSeeger 4y ago

To give a minor example of this... You want to get people to vote for your candidate. So you create social media posts saying the opponent voted against funds that would go to veterans. You don't need to look anything up, you just need to create the post. It's almost certainly true, because EVERY candidate has done this. However, it's extremely misleading... Your opponent wants to make sure people understand the truth. The truth is that there were several bills that would fund veterans with a small amount of money, but they were all "add-ons" to other bills that did major things that the candidate did not approve of (for example, something like saying no state may provide a drivers license to anyone that is an ex-con). Now, in order make sure people understand the truth, you have to find the cases where the candidate in question voted against money for veterans, explain what the situation behind it was, and why there was "something bigger to consider" in each case. Vs you, who only had to create a simple post. The level of effort is in no way balanced.

stickyricky 4y ago
> When are you going to be affected by this theory? Are you swayed by lies and misinformation? Do you cling to beliefs in the face of fact and evidence? Are you undeserving of the right to speak because of it?
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  I am generally not affected by this type of lie/misinformation, because I specifically look for it. That's not to say I'm never affected by it, just that I keep an eye out for that type of thing. But I know for a fact that people I know and care about _are_ affected by it, and on a regular basis. Plus it's used to sway people I don't know, and those people vote. And I find it concerning that they will base their vote on incorrect information.
  - prottog 4y ago
    Being worried that they will base their vote on incorrect information is really, really close to being worried that they will vote incorrectly, period. Very few things in politics are so cut and dry that there's one "correct" fact.