4 ms·

You think governments have the ability to combat misinformation without living in some Orwellian-esque regime? "Misinformation" is probably one of the most abu

You think governments have the ability to combat misinformation without living in some Orwellian-esque regime? "Misinformation" is probably one of the most abused phrases of our age. If we could even start by labeling misinformation properly, then maybe we could do something about it. The point of a sovereign government is to serve the people—that's it. Keep them safe, keep things "fair" (to whatever degree that's possible), and to fight for the prolonged existence of said people. "Misinformation" hardly fits into that in its current state.

dmix 3y ago
> "Misinformation" is probably one of the most abused phrases of our age. Politifact is a good case study. Academics have repeatedly published data since 2011 [1] and most recently 2023 [2] showing an overt bias yet it's still used as a reputable source to fact check things in many places on the internet. [1] https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2011/02/10/selection-bias-politifact-rate/ https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2011/02/10/selection-bias-... [2] https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/8f9a6f3b-efd7-46f3-b4be-49fe0fb8e0c3 https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/8f9a6f3b-efd7-46f3-b4be...
- arp242 3y ago
  That "PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats" could also be explained by Republicans making false statements 3 times as often. I don't want to start a huge partisan pissing match here, but that possibility wasn't considered and is merely hand-waved away. It also doesn't even attempt to look at the ratings themselves to see if they're about accurate. That second article is more or less the same with more words. Neither are convincing for claims of "overt bias", and even IF there was a huge bias in the selection of statements to rate, then this only means ... a bias in the selection of statement to rate, and doesn't actually say anything about the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the actual fact-checks. A partisan "we-rate-republicans.com" and "we-rate-democrats.com" could be 100% accurate in their ratings. "Biased" does not equal "false". I do think that "politicians from one side are rated much more frequently" is a good reason to take a close and skeptical look by the way, but that needs to start with "are politicians from that side actually untruthful significantly more often" as a baseline. So I would rate your post as "false" for 1) making a claim that's completely unsupported by your evidence because your evidence actually makes a different claim, and 2) being weak evidence in the first place.
sofixa 3y ago
> Keep them safe Imagine an enemy uses troll farms to cause divisions, spread lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories in plain sight. This leads to people distrusting everything (how can you even know what is truth when there are so many lies out there, etc.), including medical advice from medical professionals, evacuation orders in case of natural disasters, etc. Or even participate in a coup attempt because social media has led them to believe there is some gross injustice, or whatever. Or go and decapitate teachers because social media told them they're offending their holy religion. Now, the above is factual, not an imaginary scenario. At the very least Russia has been caught directly doing the above, as well as paying actors to cause trouble and stoke divisions (like the guy burning Qurans in Sweden). In some countries there have even been fights between troll farms from different countries (it was somewhere in Central Africa between Russian and French troll farms) online. Same goes for ISIS and similar organisations that had very heavy recruitment online. So, do you really think combating misinformation such as the above isn't a part of keeping citizens safe? I'd take selective censorship of e.g. ISIS and affiliated groups in exchange for teachers not getting decapitated, thank you very much. (If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating with the decapitation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arras_school_stabbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arras_school_stabbing which was "just" a stabbing)
- smsm42 3y ago
  What's causing people to distrust everything is not some troll farms lying to them. It's their own government lying to them, constantly, repeatedly, incessantly - and then claiming only strict control by the same government over all the information can save the citizens from evil trolls that are out to get them. I dgaf what Russians say, but when I see the US government lying constantly and the corporate press parroting these lies and submitting themselves to the partisan propaganda - I will never trust them ever again on anything.
- LanzVonL 3y ago
  [flagged]
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  > Now, the above is factual, not an imaginary scenario It's an imaginary scenario. You know that the whole Russiagate multi-year farce turned out to be nothing but lies from our own governments, right? It's been proven many times over. The idea that we have to be kept safe from "division" is especially hilarious given that the whole point of democracy is to allow people to work out their naturally occurring divisions peacefully.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>You think governments have the ability to combat misinformation without living in some Orwellian-esque regime yes. Of course it can and has been abused, but if we use that line of thinking we'd have zero government. >If we could even start by labeling misinformation properly, then maybe we could do something about it. I agree. It's very case by case, but I'd hope in this case that "flooded with fake images [about war]", i.e. propaganda, is at least one of these cases where you do want governments (emphasis on plural)to intervene. Especially as AI will only hasten the ability to generate such propaganda. >"Misinformation" hardly fits into that in its current state. misinformation fit into all 3 aspects you mention, though. misinformation has harmed people, regardless of your political spectrum we should be able to agree with this. And the ability to process the proper facts does keep things fair over who has the "hottest memes" or exploits SEO the best for their goals.
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  Misinformation has not harmed people. Stupid people have believed stupid things at face value and acted on that information. Information cannot harm. Only inform. For better or for worse. If you are too stupid and get duped by incorrect information, that's on you. No one else.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    By the same logic, drugs and gambling never harmed anyone. Every party agrees and partakers in the activity. At what point is it deemed suitable for the government to step in and say gambling is illegal? >If you are too stupid and get duped by incorrect information, that's on you. No one else. You and all your victims apparently. The family that may not be able to escape you, the people you prejudice against or even assault over your zealous beliefs, the town you vote or even assign new policy directly to. Maybe even the planet you impact l. If stupid people kept to themselves a lot of laws and regulations wouldn't need to exist. But my country did need 200 years just to consider a woman a "voting citizen" after all.
    - mikrotikker 3y ago

dmix 3y ago

> "Misinformation" is probably one of the most abused phrases of our age. Politifact is a good case study. Academics have repeatedly published data since 2011 [1] and most recently 2023 [2] showing an overt bias yet it's still used as a reputable source to fact check things in many places on the internet. [1] https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2011/02/10/selection-bias-politifact-rate/ https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2011/02/10/selection-bias-... [2] https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/8f9a6f3b-efd7-46f3-b4be-49fe0fb8e0c3 https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/8f9a6f3b-efd7-46f3-b4be...

arp242 3y ago
That "PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats" could also be explained by Republicans making false statements 3 times as often. I don't want to start a huge partisan pissing match here, but that possibility wasn't considered and is merely hand-waved away. It also doesn't even attempt to look at the ratings themselves to see if they're about accurate. That second article is more or less the same with more words. Neither are convincing for claims of "overt bias", and even IF there was a huge bias in the selection of statements to rate, then this only means ... a bias in the selection of statement to rate, and doesn't actually say anything about the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the actual fact-checks. A partisan "we-rate-republicans.com" and "we-rate-democrats.com" could be 100% accurate in their ratings. "Biased" does not equal "false". I do think that "politicians from one side are rated much more frequently" is a good reason to take a close and skeptical look by the way, but that needs to start with "are politicians from that side actually untruthful significantly more often" as a baseline. So I would rate your post as "false" for 1) making a claim that's completely unsupported by your evidence because your evidence actually makes a different claim, and 2) being weak evidence in the first place.

sofixa 3y ago

> Keep them safe Imagine an enemy uses troll farms to cause divisions, spread lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories in plain sight. This leads to people distrusting everything (how can you even know what is truth when there are so many lies out there, etc.), including medical advice from medical professionals, evacuation orders in case of natural disasters, etc. Or even participate in a coup attempt because social media has led them to believe there is some gross injustice, or whatever. Or go and decapitate teachers because social media told them they're offending their holy religion. Now, the above is factual, not an imaginary scenario. At the very least Russia has been caught directly doing the above, as well as paying actors to cause trouble and stoke divisions (like the guy burning Qurans in Sweden). In some countries there have even been fights between troll farms from different countries (it was somewhere in Central Africa between Russian and French troll farms) online. Same goes for ISIS and similar organisations that had very heavy recruitment online. So, do you really think combating misinformation such as the above isn't a part of keeping citizens safe? I'd take selective censorship of e.g. ISIS and affiliated groups in exchange for teachers not getting decapitated, thank you very much. (If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating with the decapitation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arras_school_stabbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arras_school_stabbing which was "just" a stabbing)

smsm42 3y ago
What's causing people to distrust everything is not some troll farms lying to them. It's their own government lying to them, constantly, repeatedly, incessantly - and then claiming only strict control by the same government over all the information can save the citizens from evil trolls that are out to get them. I dgaf what Russians say, but when I see the US government lying constantly and the corporate press parroting these lies and submitting themselves to the partisan propaganda - I will never trust them ever again on anything.
LanzVonL 3y ago
[flagged]
nvm0n2 3y ago
> Now, the above is factual, not an imaginary scenario It's an imaginary scenario. You know that the whole Russiagate multi-year farce turned out to be nothing but lies from our own governments, right? It's been proven many times over. The idea that we have to be kept safe from "division" is especially hilarious given that the whole point of democracy is to allow people to work out their naturally occurring divisions peacefully.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>You think governments have the ability to combat misinformation without living in some Orwellian-esque regime yes. Of course it can and has been abused, but if we use that line of thinking we'd have zero government. >If we could even start by labeling misinformation properly, then maybe we could do something about it. I agree. It's very case by case, but I'd hope in this case that "flooded with fake images [about war]", i.e. propaganda, is at least one of these cases where you do want governments (emphasis on plural)to intervene. Especially as AI will only hasten the ability to generate such propaganda. >"Misinformation" hardly fits into that in its current state. misinformation fit into all 3 aspects you mention, though. misinformation has harmed people, regardless of your political spectrum we should be able to agree with this. And the ability to process the proper facts does keep things fair over who has the "hottest memes" or exploits SEO the best for their goals.

mikrotikker 3y ago
Misinformation has not harmed people. Stupid people have believed stupid things at face value and acted on that information. Information cannot harm. Only inform. For better or for worse. If you are too stupid and get duped by incorrect information, that's on you. No one else.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  By the same logic, drugs and gambling never harmed anyone. Every party agrees and partakers in the activity. At what point is it deemed suitable for the government to step in and say gambling is illegal? >If you are too stupid and get duped by incorrect information, that's on you. No one else. You and all your victims apparently. The family that may not be able to escape you, the people you prejudice against or even assault over your zealous beliefs, the town you vote or even assign new policy directly to. Maybe even the planet you impact l. If stupid people kept to themselves a lot of laws and regulations wouldn't need to exist. But my country did need 200 years just to consider a woman a "voting citizen" after all.
  - mikrotikker 3y ago