> On the other hand, I'm aware that certain influential figures explicitly manipulate their speech in order to primarily amass personal power regardless of any

> On the other hand, I'm aware that certain influential figures explicitly manipulate their speech in order to primarily amass personal power regardless of any second-order effects. E.g. cults are horrible, even though people are freely congregating, they just feel like they can't leave because of the emotional abuse these influential figures are heaping via their speech. > On a third hand, the loved one of a politician was severely injured because of someone who believes the incorrect speech of influential figures and I desperately do not want further injury or violence to occur spurned by incorrect speech on the facts of reality. Terrible things, but I wonder how someone can come to the conclusion that it is a better solution to police the information than actually strengthen people's ability to detect arbitrary BS by themselves. Policing disinformation does not scale (Brandolini's law), while teaching people to think does. Why aren't logical fallacies a part of every school's curriculum? Is it because the "official" disinformation would suffer from that too? Before we start to police disinformation, don't we need a court-proof definition of the term disinformation? I tried to look up the definition of truth, only to learn that there is no commonly accepted philosohical definition of that. So most likely, any definition of disinformation that is used to depress certain information will be BS too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth