5 ms·

How about "fight" "disinformation" "weapons" with explanations of the truth. The 4th branch of the govt AKA the mainstream media has proven a failure of dissemi

by andirk 4y ago

How about "fight" "disinformation" "weapons" with explanations of the truth. The 4th branch of the govt AKA the mainstream media has proven a failure of disseminating truth when it counts, and thus has eroded our trust in it. PSAs paid for w/ public tax $ like The Ad Council have their controversies but are generally countering some social issue with a "this is bad" message [0] but outright censorship of even blatantly false information is a sign that our government's integrity is shot to hell. Next time you hear someone spewing some bullshit like the 2016 election was rigged (Russia) or the 2020 election was rigged (tbh not sure who the main villain rigged this one), remember that people have been accustomed to lies from the top and are not completely crazy for looking to the fringes for the real scoop. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council#Famous_and_Controversial_Campaigns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council#Famous_and_Controve...

dctoedt 4y ago
> explanations of the truth Mass purveyors of disinformation are thieves of the time of the rest of us, and should be treated accordingly.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation?
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation? People read fiction novels voluntarily, and the authors don't lie about their work being fact. (Also: You mean "prosecute," I think.)
- EarlKing 4y ago
  God forbid anyone should have their time wasted. Purveyors of Prior Restraint are thieves of our natural rights and should be treated accordingly.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > Purveyors of Prior Restraint are thieves of our natural rights 1. Recall the old chestnut that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. 2. There ARE no "natural rights" — what we call "rights" is simply the visiting of adverse consequences upon "bad" actors by others who object to their actions. The Russians who rape and murder innocents in occupied Ukraine are unlikely to have such consequences visited upon them, so we can't really say that their victims had "natural rights."
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      1. My words are not a fist, and your eyes and ears are not your nose. 2. "There are no natural rights"-- Right and wrong exist independent of the capacity of Man to do evil. Rape is evil regardless of whether or not someone gets caught and prosecuted... or are you insinuating that it's OK as long as nobody ever finds out?
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        > My words are not a fist, and your eyes and ears are not your nose. If you spread lies at scale, with the purpose of getting voters to elect officials who will fuck up others' lives, then that's a distinction without a difference.
        EarlKing 4y ago
        [flagged]
        dctoedt 4y ago
        Ah, I see you've emerged from cover.
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        > Right and wrong exist independent of the capacity of Man to do evil. That seems like a variation on the old "if a tree falls in the forest but there's no one there to hear it ...." By analogy: For 300-plus years, millions of kidnapped Africans and their descendants were unable to convince the white rulers of the American South that enslavement was evil — as indeed it truly is — because the enslavers, in their echo chamber, had convinced themselves otherwise and had the guns. Consequently, the enslaved workers' "natural rights" were a nullity — that is, until the U.S. Army weighed in and kicked the shit out of the southerners. (I have a lot of sympathy for an anonymous Army officer's tweet that I read awhile back: Sherman should have mowed the south like a lawn, with multiple passes.)
- andirk 4y ago
  Freedom of speech has its downsides, yes. My only point is to _add_ to the discussion, not _delete_ discussions. We have laws in place for defamatory speech and plenty of other exceptions. Saying false things about climate change or how "democracy" works can often be countered with basic facts. People will often still choose to believe fallacies at will and that is their right as an American.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > countered with basic facts You're disregarding the key distinction: Malevolent actors are (in Steve Bannon's words) flooding the zone with shit, which they're able to do at trivial cost. The rest of us shouldn't have to put up with that, forced to spend our time digging through the shit spread by those who, for their own purposes, want to sabotage our societal decision-making processes.
mikkergp 4y ago
> How about "fight" "disinformation" "weapons" with explanations of the truth Tell me how this isn’t comparable to saying “if you just explain to the trolls they are hurting your feelings, they’ll stop” I 100% promise you “the truth” already exists for 99% of topics out there. You seem to be setting up a paradox. The government shouldn’t intervene in misinformation, but somehow the government and media should align themselves to spread only factual information, which would be way creepier. Any realistic solution has to happen despite an imperfect media and a landscape with all sorts of conflicting information, not try to eliminate it. Ad council seems like just another way to tell people in their bubbles what they already know.

by andirk 4y ago

dctoedt 4y ago

> explanations of the truth Mass purveyors of disinformation are thieves of the time of the rest of us, and should be treated accordingly.

unknownaccount 4y ago
Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation?
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation? People read fiction novels voluntarily, and the authors don't lie about their work being fact. (Also: You mean "prosecute," I think.)
EarlKing 4y ago
God forbid anyone should have their time wasted. Purveyors of Prior Restraint are thieves of our natural rights and should be treated accordingly.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > Purveyors of Prior Restraint are thieves of our natural rights 1. Recall the old chestnut that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. 2. There ARE no "natural rights" — what we call "rights" is simply the visiting of adverse consequences upon "bad" actors by others who object to their actions. The Russians who rape and murder innocents in occupied Ukraine are unlikely to have such consequences visited upon them, so we can't really say that their victims had "natural rights."
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    1. My words are not a fist, and your eyes and ears are not your nose. 2. "There are no natural rights"-- Right and wrong exist independent of the capacity of Man to do evil. Rape is evil regardless of whether or not someone gets caught and prosecuted... or are you insinuating that it's OK as long as nobody ever finds out?
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      > My words are not a fist, and your eyes and ears are not your nose. If you spread lies at scale, with the purpose of getting voters to elect officials who will fuck up others' lives, then that's a distinction without a difference.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        [flagged]
        dctoedt 4y ago
        Ah, I see you've emerged from cover.
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      > Right and wrong exist independent of the capacity of Man to do evil. That seems like a variation on the old "if a tree falls in the forest but there's no one there to hear it ...." By analogy: For 300-plus years, millions of kidnapped Africans and their descendants were unable to convince the white rulers of the American South that enslavement was evil — as indeed it truly is — because the enslavers, in their echo chamber, had convinced themselves otherwise and had the guns. Consequently, the enslaved workers' "natural rights" were a nullity — that is, until the U.S. Army weighed in and kicked the shit out of the southerners. (I have a lot of sympathy for an anonymous Army officer's tweet that I read awhile back: Sherman should have mowed the south like a lawn, with multiple passes.)
andirk 4y ago
Freedom of speech has its downsides, yes. My only point is to _add_ to the discussion, not _delete_ discussions. We have laws in place for defamatory speech and plenty of other exceptions. Saying false things about climate change or how "democracy" works can often be countered with basic facts. People will often still choose to believe fallacies at will and that is their right as an American.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > countered with basic facts You're disregarding the key distinction: Malevolent actors are (in Steve Bannon's words) flooding the zone with shit, which they're able to do at trivial cost. The rest of us shouldn't have to put up with that, forced to spend our time digging through the shit spread by those who, for their own purposes, want to sabotage our societal decision-making processes.

mikkergp 4y ago

> How about "fight" "disinformation" "weapons" with explanations of the truth Tell me how this isn’t comparable to saying “if you just explain to the trolls they are hurting your feelings, they’ll stop” I 100% promise you “the truth” already exists for 99% of topics out there. You seem to be setting up a paradox. The government shouldn’t intervene in misinformation, but somehow the government and media should align themselves to spread only factual information, which would be way creepier. Any realistic solution has to happen despite an imperfect media and a landscape with all sorts of conflicting information, not try to eliminate it. Ad council seems like just another way to tell people in their bubbles what they already know.