7 ms·
Misinformation should be refuted, not censored
- r721 3y ago>fcpp.org >Among the positions promoted by the Centre is climate change denial. >Funding comes from private charitable foundations (63%) such as the Aurea Foundation and the Heartland Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Centre_for_Public_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Centre_for_Public_Pol... >Many of their published articles are by well-known climate change skeptics Patrick Moore (see publications), Donna Laframboise (see publications), and Paul Driessen (see publications) https://www.desmog.com/frontier-centre-public-policy/ https://www.desmog.com/frontier-centre-public-policy/
- boringalterego 3y agoWhen I don't know something, posting what I know is wrong is usually the quickest way of getting someone to post the correct answer.
- thewanderer1983 3y agoHere are some more interesting parallels between then and now. https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/the-war-against-printing/ https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/the-war-against-printing/ https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/65585/pg65585-images.html#Page_26 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/65585/pg65585-images.ht...
- graemep 3y agoI think there is a lesson to be learned from this: "even the most ignorant might might feel emboldened to try interpreting God’s words for themselves. As such, there was serious risk that honest folk would be led far from the path of orthodoxy" This happened, and (among other things) lead to contemporary Biblical literalism (an extreme from of the protestant elevation of the Bible as authoritative over theological argument and tradition). On the other hand, however bad a thing you think Biblical literalism is, I do not think anyone would argue (now, with the benefit of hindsight etc) that it would have been a good thing to censor books in the way Filippo wanted.
- yawpitch 3y ago… says a hotbed of misinformation.
- beardyw 3y agoDon't lock your doors - that's what we have police for.
- djschnei 3y agoThat comparison makes zero sense. The police are a way for us to delegate our self-defense to a third party, the state. We give the police a certain level of authority in return for (hopefully) safety. In your metaphor you're suggesting, "don't protect yourself, you already delegated that responsibility". Censoring speech on the internet is exactly the same delegation of responsibility. "Don't protect yourself, delegate that responsibility to the censors". Your metaphor is making the opposite point that you're intending.
- gretyuph 3y ago[dead]
- dvhh 3y agoThere is a saying: A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes.
- willis936 3y agoYesterday I was shown Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Anyone unwilling to address this in the free speech argument is not arguing in good faith. Putting things out there in bad faith is the exact reason why censorship needs to be considered. Not a good look.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it This problem is not new (boy that cried wolf). Doesn’t unmasking all actors provide an efficient shortcut?
- Volundr 3y ago> Doesn’t unmasking all actors provide an efficient shortcut? I can't figure out what you are suggesting here. It kind of feels like you are suggesting removing anonymity from online discussions is the solution? But I doubt that's actually what you are driving at.
- nobodyandproud 3y agoI am indeed suggesting exactly this, though there are different layers of anonymity. Such as continent, nation, state/city, down to the individual. But I also mean that everyone knows who the others are from the start of a conversation. Not so much as a punitive measure after-the-fact. My question is this: Rather than censoring, why aren’t we asking whether/how misinformation can be directly and visibly attributed to the sources peddling the misinformation?
- TuringNYC 3y agoSome misinformation is misinformation, it can be refuted. Some "misinformation" is information where there are multiple perspectives, and the "mis" classification is because the ruling party is on the opposite side. This is why censorship is chosen, because it cannot be refuted. The correctness or incorrectness is in the eye of the beholder.
- thsksbd 3y agoPretty much. I'll get ravaged for pointing this out, but Hunter Biden's laptop and Joes corruption in Ukraine were Russian misinformation until last year. Now the NYT admits the laptop is real and is slowly admitting that Burisma smells really bad.
- bavell 3y ago"All the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" - signed by like 50 ex-intel guys. Oops, they were all wrong in the same direction!
- danbruc 3y ago[flagged]
- graemep 3y agoWhat in the Bible can you show to be misinformation? You seem to be making the same mistake as the censors: that you personally do not believe something to be true means it is misinformation. If you just want a good example, one of the first best sellers was Malleus Maleficarum, the book that revived belief in witchcraft (belief in which, contrary to popular misconceptions, had been suppressed by the church for most of the medieval period) and lead to the witch burnings of the early modern era.
- danbruc 3y agoNobody has to prove that there are no unicorns, who claims their existence has to present the evidence, and I was obviously not referring to the parts of the Bible that deal with mundane things. But let me rephrase my statement, by printing the Bible unsubstantiated claims were spread. I will give you that misinformation and unsubstantiated claim are not the same, but there is considerable overlap.
- thsksbd 3y agoNever mind the Bible is a fairly (very) accurate historical record of the history of the Israelites post Judges. Since you're clearly a biblical scholar: What part of the Bible is misinformation? What is your definition of misinformation? Do you consider the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran misinformation? What would you have done to convert this misinformation? Let it be until the forces of liberalism erase Christianity (and Judaism presumably)? Forced anti-Bible education in the elementary curriculum? Incarceration of religious? The Reds in Mexico and Spain shot priests and raped nuns. Was that too much? Not far enough?
- sbuk 3y agoIf this post is misinformation, which you are asking for evidence of, why don't you refute it, as the article suggests? I disagree that the Bible is misinformation now; it's historical literature - a very long novel, much like other fantasy novels. The same is true for the other stories you mention.
- patchtopic 3y agothis reasoning assumes some kind of reasoned one on one debate, and does not take into account intentional "flooding the zone" tactics.
- rbanffy 3y agoIt erroneously assumes there is a willingness to enter honest debate.
- thsksbd 3y agoLet me be the judge and deal with the flooding, thank you very much.
- faitswulff 3y agoYou may be educated or motivated enough to determine the wheat from the chaff, but a good deal of the (voting) population is not.
- Calamitous 3y ago“People are so dumb, we have to protect them from ideas we think are dangerous”?
- faitswulff 3y agoOr protect others. Look up stochastic terrorism for an example of unfettered access to bad ideas. In fact, I’ll save you some key strokes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
- thsksbd 3y agoAn entry on wikipedia (great source, btw) doesn't make something real.
- bavell 3y ago
- conartist6 3y agoI thought we did science and determined that telling people they're victims of misinformation is about the most useless way of trying to change their mind. Facebook experimented with refutation and it was a disaster, it had the opposite effect intended. At least that's what I heard, and given everything I know about human nature I believe it.
- webmobdev 3y agoI'd be suspicious of any research from BigTech on this - it is in their vested interest to allow and control political discussions on their platform due to the huge influence it gives them in shaping political discourse in any country.
- rbanffy 3y agoDisinformation campaigns are asymmetrical warfare. It takes a huge amount of effort to undo the damage caused by disinfo, while it's trivial to create more disinformation (and this was already true before generative AI became a thing). So, no. If we can prevent it from being created or launched, or if we can prevent it from reaching its audience, then, and only then, information can win.
- bavell 3y ago> If we can prevent it from being created or launched, or if we can prevent it from reaching its audience, then, and only then, information can win. Agreed, we must shut down the dastardly Internet immediately! And burn all the books!
- rbanffy 3y agoThat's not what I said or meant. Given a lot of political coordinated misinformation campaigns come from a limited number of actors and organizations, with mostly aligned interests, I don't think it's impossible, or even difficult, to prevent their weapons from spreading without any collateral damage to freedom of speech. You can still be wrong and nobody should prevent you from expressing the wrongness the same way you shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from correcting you. Remember the reason for free speech: it exists so that the people can be informed, a fundamental requirement for the exercise of democracy. When someone actively and deliberately misinforms the people, for whatever reasons, they should be held accountable for any damage they cause - the very same way one can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre and expect society not to punish them for the deaths they caused.
- redserk 3y agoI disagree with this because intent is a significant factor to consider. If a person contributing online is incorrect but participates in good faith, refuting is a great way to continue the discussion in a healthy, constructive manner. If a person contributing online is not participating in good faith, this becomes a lot more complex. Especially based on the degree and potential impacts of misinformation. Free speech is a right that only works when people utilizing it do so responsibly.
- djschnei 3y agoAs long as the ruling class thinks your speech is responsible, then speak away!
- bavell 3y agoI agree with you on the point that free speech (and free societies in general I think) require a culture of good faith participation. You only get nice things when everyone is more or less civil. The problem is making the tough choices of what to do about uncivil discourse or bad faith actors who are not interested in upholding civility for the sake of the society. Unfortunately there are no easy answers which leave us with a lot of bad or difficult options to choose from.
- nobodyandproud 3y agoDiscussion tends to be more civil when participants can’t be anonymous. Then an entire class of trolling stops becoming scalable.
- bavell 3y agoVery true, IMO one of the reasons why the internet is so toxic is because humans aren't actually interacting directly with each other - we just fire off our thoughts into the ether from behind our screens. I'd think we're not utilizing all of our social faculties we otherwise would in a face-to-face conversation. We don't see a human in front of us so our brains aren't "firing on all cylinders". E.g. being polite, assuming good-faith, tempering negative impulses and all of the other social lubricant that normally allows humans to peacefully coexist in a society.
- novalis78 3y agoThe mental acrobatics on HN in favor for censorship are quite something to behold.
- thsksbd 3y agoCensorship and more broad support for surveillance are the only two aspects of HN that i feel has changed since 2011 when I first discovered it.
- walls 3y agoA site that is heavily censored having people who see the benefits of moderation shouldn’t be very surprising.
- bavell 3y ago> A site that is moderated having people... FTFY
- x86_64Ubuntu 3y agoIt's very difficult to be a proponent of no censorship/moderation on a site that is known to have [flagged] and [dead] accounts/comments.
- em-bee 3y agoyou can still read the flagged and dead comments. they are NOT censored. they are hidden to get out of the way, but they are not removed. if you want to know what is being flagged or dead, you can go and check. i do. that's exactly the point.
- PaulKeeble 3y agoThe problem has always been who can you trust to choose what is misinformation. I know of no one I would outsource that too, I certainly don't want to outsource it to any of the billionaire owners of the social networks, news papers nor to any government now or in the future. I live in an age where the WHO called Covid droplet spread when it was and proven to be airborne and governments around the globe are still telling people to diligently wash their hands for a virus they breath in. Most of the mainstream media and social media is happily going with that as well. You can't trust people generally, including the authorities and experts on a topic. I choose no one to have the power over what I can read.
- taeric 3y agoI'll also assert that the problem of volume is real. Both quantity and loudness. The challenger incident is a good case study. The motivated management to attempt the launch made it such that the quiet truth of the actual safety was hard for the group to hear. Until it was a disaster. (Yes, I think I'm basically restating the squeaky wheel idea.)
- dangus 3y agoThis article is conveniently omitting the conservative efforts to censor content and spread less factual versions of reality, like the Florida school system’s wide censorship of books implemented by Ron DeSantis, or the conservative efforts in multiple states to remove any discussion gender or race from curriculum, or approval of PragerU as an education vendor in Texas. Government censorship is bad, and bill C-10 is bad, but the one-sided nature of this article reveals its true motivation, which is to support conservative politics.
- bavell 3y agoProbably because most of what you posted is, in your words, "less factual versions of reality"
- dangus 3y agoWell, you’ve put zero effort into refuting my version of reality, simply saying that I’m wrong with no supporting detail. When refuted this article I at least gave you examples to work with.
- bavell 3y agoThat's fair, and it's also exactly one of the issues discussed in this thread. Namely, that refuting "misinformation" is an order of magnitude harder than spreading it. I can tell we have deep disagreements, and it would take entirely too much time and effort to try and convince you otherwise (which is probably unachievable in this sort of forum anyways). I'll just say that I disagree with the framing of your points around school curriculum and Florida censorship. The framing is the most uncharitable interpretation of what's actually going on, which is why I referred to your "less factual versions of reality".
- afpx 3y agoYou didn’t really clear things up.
- deleted 3y ago
- AugustoCAS 3y agoPart of me agrees, another strongly disagrees. Refutation works in a rational society, and we don't live in one. Quoting the fantastic Terry Pratchett: "A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." This has a few consequences: 1) Most of the damage is done. 2) Correcting the lie/misinformation takes a lot more effort that it takes to spread the lie. 3) The lie/misinformation can cost lives (missinformation on vaccines, coloidal silver, etc) It doesn't help that some people and publications make money by selling lies and inflaming people (tabloids, many 'influencers', etc). And also that some supposedly respected institutions are often the originator of those lies (e.g. health risks of smoking, excess sugars, etc)
- mangodrunk 3y agoThe solution isn’t to censor. How does one decide what should be censored and what should be allowed? We are refining what we know and altogether dropping wrong ideas for new ones. What is the goal of censorship? There was a time when those who suggested the Earth revolved around the sun were censored and attacked.
- untitaker_ 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
- nobodyandproud 3y agoThis isn’t a new problem. Good bullshit and misinformation traveled well even before the internet, so how did we manage before?
- notacoward 3y agoAs the OP makes pretty clear, the amplification effect of the internet has made the problem worse than it used to be, so "traveled well before" is misleading at best. This asymmetry has been written about many times - as bullshit, flooding the zone, sealioning, etc. What some call censorship is often just trying to make things symmetrical again, to give those who are trying to argue from facts a fighting chance. That's why such accusations are a staple among the people who peddle the misinformation in the first place, and also among people who are just trying to avoid accountability when they've always been perfectly free to say what they want. People need to learn what real censorship is, and stop throwing the term around any time they don't think they're getting the hearing or reaction they deserve.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago> As the OP makes pretty clear, the amplification effect of the internet has made the problem worse than it used to be, so "traveled well before" is misleading at best. Correct. What about our ability to ruin reputations? Hasn’t that amplified as well via the so-called Streisand effect? You are advocating for censorship for practical reasons, but it is censorship at the end of the day. What you’re saying is that it’s hard to battle misinformation, and this is true. What isn’t true is that muzzling misinformation is the only way to combat this problem, even if it seems like the easiest approach. And if you want accountability, then censorship is the least effective approach in a democratic society; as you’ve hidden away what should be held to account.
- phmqk76 3y agoHow about, platforms that publish misinformation should be financially liable for the ill effects of the misinformation. How did we build a tech ecosystem wherein tech companies get the exclusive right to run ads against the content on their site, and yet have no liability over the effects of that content?
- bavell 3y agoSeems like section 230 has been completely forgotten and has no power anymore.
- nobodyandproud 3y agoSo if that platform were a public square, we’d hold the government liable? I deeply disagree with the proponents of anti-vax; and many of the right-wing positions. And I think, for instance, removing some of the internet anonymity and breaking up tech monopolies would both be quite helpful in solving the problems we have today. Completely shutting down discourse and not allowing fringe ideas to be discussed, however, can’t be the way.
- tjpnz 3y agoIt's a pointless endeavour when there are those who'll believe religiously in bunk regardless. I spent a considerable amount of time during the pandemic refuting a "data scientist" on Twitter whose forte was misquoting BMJ articles and producing misleading charts based loosely on real data. Didn't change a single mind even when I could show it was bleedingly obvious he was full of shit. What's worse is he knew perfectly well what he was doing, and I'm certain he also owned a copy of "How to Lie With Statistics". I now wish I had spent that time on something more productive and left his followers to believe whatever they wanted to believe.
- Jensson 3y ago> Didn't change a single mind How do you know? People don't post "thanks for changing my mind!" when they change their mind. Have you ever changed your mind? How often did you go and express that you changed your mind to the person who changed your mind? Did you at some point start voting differently? Did you go to the politician that convinced you and told him he changed your mind? Probably not, people mostly change their mind in silence, many wont even acknowledge they changed their mind if you confront them.
- honeybadger1 3y ago[flagged]
- webmobdev 3y agoI used to believe the United States had the most sophisticated production and mediums for creating and spreading their propaganda and cultural values. But the ban against Russia Today (Accused of spreading propaganda, RT gets deplatformed - https://www.protocol.com/entertainment/rt-ban-roku-apple-directv https://www.protocol.com/entertainment/rt-ban-roku-apple-dir... ) in both the US and Europe really changed my perspective. It would be really interesting to know the cost-benefit analysis they did before considering such a drastic step because not only does it go against their democratic values it suddenly introduces a very apparent cognitive dissonance to the western idea that Russia is weak and irrelevant as a super power (and isn't even worthy to be called a super power) - if that is the reality then why is it that the US, the most vocal vanguard of free speech, suddenly feels so threatened by the ideas in RT? And why do US and European political leaders suddenly believe that they are no longer in a position to present a strong counter view to the ideas in RT? My regular sources of news includes my country's own local media, and international outlets like BBC, CNN, DW, Arab News, Gulf Times, NYT, NYP, NPR etc. RT wasn't even on the radar. RT is now part of my regular sources of news - when I learnt about the ban, I got curious about it and checked it out (the Streisand effect at work). I found the content to be similar to many of the other public funded media outlets - all of them have similar types of news, views and propaganda (why their own country / culture is great, how their enemies are wrong, and their different perspective about other countries depending on their own country's relationship with them etc.). Yes, when it comes to reporting on the US, I did notice a definite slant towards Republican politics on RT. But then, if one believes in democracy and free speech the way the US does, why should a non-Republican administration feel threatened if RT paints the American Republicans in a better light than the Democrats (or some other politician or party)? It's natural for voters to be swayed but finally it is still an American who is elected by the masses - whether it be a Democrat or a Republican. And representational democracy offers a check and balance in such a democracy - just because Americans who read RT get swayed and elect Republicans, doesn't mean the elected Republicans have to be swayed by the mass (in fact it often is the other way, and like I pointed out, representation can serve as one of the built-in checks and balances of representational democracy against majoritarianism). However, if some Democrats / Americans believe that their own fellow American politicians will not serve their own country's interest, America has an existential issue bigger than Russia. Censoring information just makes the educated suspicious towards an administration. Countering it, or even just presenting an alternate perspective to it is what cultivates democratic value. Else it is a slow slide to authoritarianism, which is what we are all seeing more and more of, around the world.
- more_corn 3y agoNo. This is well proven. 1) it is exponentially easier to generate bullshit than to refute it 2) the prevalence of misinformation can sway public opinion and the opinion of those without sufficient experience to refute The correct approach is to lay out the facts clearly, outlining the chain of reasoning so that anyone can follow it if they choose. Identify known purveyors of bullshit and shut them down so they stop polluting the idea space. And carefully, with intellectual humility consider opposing but well reasoned ideas. Shutting down known bullshiters is necessary for preserving public discourse otherwise they just spray bullshit at all hours of all days and overwhelm well reasoned discourse. If someone is shouting nonsense in a debate, interrupting, and not listening you have no obligation to keep them in the debate. In fact if they’re arguing in bad faith that alone is enough to stop listening to them, stop amplifying them, stop talking about their ideas.
- nvm0n2 3y ago> No. This is well proven. 1) it is exponentially easier to generate bullshit than to refute it If it's well proven then you can easily link to a rigorous proof of that claim, one that justifies the use of mathematical terminology like "exponentially easier". Yes? I think it's not actually proven and cannot be proven because you don't have a precise definition of bullshit to begin with, let alone a reliable means of identifying it, nor any way to measure how "easy" it is to create rather than refute. Therefore any claim that it is exponentially easier, must itself be misinformation. Which means that under your own policy you would be "shut down", whatever that means. See how sharp the sword is that you wish to wield here?
- Ajay-p 3y agoUnfortunately while the thinking is correct, in reality a lot of information is suppressed and censored because it doesn't fit the motives and beliefs of those in control of the platform. It's a little too generalized but I believe the truth does not mind a challenge, but a lie will fight.
- theshrike79 3y agoIt takes 10 seconds to puke out misinformation. It also might take hours to debunk properly. In that time you have 1000 more items of misinformation to debunk. How do we win?
- atmavatar 3y agoAn element to this this I'd like to see explored is how reliant some are on social media for most if not all their information. Said platforms already heavily tailor what individuals see in order to maximize engagement. Not only is it significantly harder to debunk misinformation than to create it (i.e., Brandolini's Law), but there's a good chance on social media platforms that the types of individuals presented with misinformation from some party A will never even be exposed to the debunking information from some party B at all. So, for many, they're effectively already in a censorship-rich environment. The idea that there is or has ever been a truly free exchange of ideas seems disingenuous at best.