3 ms·

Idealistically, I agree with access to information. But how do you square that (and I don’t have a solution) with the proliferation of misinformation used to ma

by latexr 12d ago

Idealistically, I agree with access to information. But how do you square that (and I don’t have a solution) with the proliferation of misinformation used to manipulate the population or the access to dangerous information such as building bombs and bio weapons?

anon48293 12d ago
That knowledge is already available and generally people don’t build bombs or bioweapons. Otherwise they could still go to university and learn all that if they so wish
- latexr 12d ago
  It is available, and searching for it is a good way to end up on a list. It is hilarious how you gave “go to university” as an option, as if all universities were accessible to anyone and taught classes on this. I also couldn’t help but notice you completely glossed over the much more important point of misinformation for manipulation.
  - mitxela 12d ago
    Almost everyone is on many lists. Has it helped?
- berkes 12d ago
  Misinformation is unfortunately also available. And contrary to "information to build bombs and bioweapons", it's doing actual harm. To societies, economies and above all, to individuals.
  - iamnothere 12d ago
    Societies don’t have the right to decide what is and isn’t false information and prevent people from accessing or spreading it. (They think they do, and that’s a problem.) Fighting misinformation has to happen through establishing and maintaining trust, and providing trusted counters to misinformation. Establishing trust requires alignment with the people you want to trust you. Interference (as opposed to participation) in the free flow of information and the process by which truth is determined is a great evil.
    - mitxela 11d ago
      We tried that, it didn't work.
      - account42 11d ago
        You mean it wasn't profitable enough for the elite.
  - account42 11d ago
    The greatest harmful misinformation at all is that the government should be the arbiter of truth. The purpose of a democratic government is to reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.
- the_gipsy 12d ago
  Ok but what about "being directly interfered with by foreign actors"? This is what's happening right now in Spain. Foreign interference (Ceuta, Dept. Of Homeland evidence...), followed up by foreign social media manipulation campaigns. Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government. This is a direct threat to democracy.
  - iamnothere 12d ago
    Is it a threat to democracy if citizens gather facts from foreign actors when their domestic government attempts to suppress those facts? On a general level, not speaking to this situation in particular. Just curious.
    - the_gipsy 11d ago
      Weird way to frame this argument as a question. The domestic government holding a monopoly on information is a threat, and foreign information can be a relief, yes. Foreign misinformation is also a threat, and domestic government shutting it out can also be a relief. So you have to ask yourself, where are we? Is Spain (or any European country that is not currently bootlicking, for that matter) a dictatorship that needs Freedom messages in a bottle from the USA, or is the USA directly subverting their democracies with espionage? Why did the USA give millions to Morocco earlier this summer? Why did the Dept. of Homeland (so espionage) produce decade old evidence of corruption in a former administration that would be linked to the current one, at this precise time? Just asking questions here.
      - iamnothere 11d ago
        All nations are under pressure to hide information from their citizens, whether it’s for covering up political scandals or suppressing political opposition. If you give them the tools, they will eventually use them. So you can’t give them the tools. The democratic way to fight misinformation is with public trust, a well educated population, and by publishing true information to counter misinformation. Anything less treats citizens as children who can’t be trusted to form their own opinions.
rdm_blackhole 12d ago
> misinformation Who decides what is misinformation? The state? The ministry of truth? That is the problem with this sort of wishful thinking. > used to manipulate the population The media industry manipulates opinions via TV channels and newspapers and has done so for the last 50 years. Heck, some states have their own TV channels like the BBC, France Info (France) , SVT (Sweden) which is completely ironic since the state funds them and there is no way to know how neutral these are. > dangerous information Dangerous information is a misnomer. You could print out how to build an atom bomb and give the step-by-step instructions for free in entire neighborhoods and no one will be able to build it because you need the right expertise and the materials to create one. Same with bio-weapons unless you think you can develop these in your kitchen after work? Secondly, we are back to the same problem. Who decides what is "dangerous information" and how far would you be willing to go to contain it? Censor social media? Censor private messages? What about emails? Textbooks? Listening devices in all homes? Cameras that you can't turn off in your toilet in case you pass information to someone else while taking a crap?
- latexr 12d ago
  I find your argument to be in extreme bad faith. Instead of steel manning the argument, you are repeatedly straw manning it. Certainly you can understand that deliberately lying about, for example, areas where the science is overwhelming such as vaccines or climate change, is misinformation. I explicitly said I don’t have a solution, your introduction of a “ministry of truth”, “wishful thinking”, censorship and surveillance are your own fabrications, not part of my argument.
  - r3trohack3r 11d ago
    “The memo says we have to work to make the facts meet the false charges to pull the wool over the eyes of the filthy masses”
  - dtho 11d ago
    Censorship can be used to monopolize the spread of misinformation.
  - 11d ago

by latexr 12d ago

anon48293 12d ago

That knowledge is already available and generally people don’t build bombs or bioweapons. Otherwise they could still go to university and learn all that if they so wish

latexr 12d ago
It is available, and searching for it is a good way to end up on a list. It is hilarious how you gave “go to university” as an option, as if all universities were accessible to anyone and taught classes on this. I also couldn’t help but notice you completely glossed over the much more important point of misinformation for manipulation.
- mitxela 12d ago
  Almost everyone is on many lists. Has it helped?
berkes 12d ago
Misinformation is unfortunately also available. And contrary to "information to build bombs and bioweapons", it's doing actual harm. To societies, economies and above all, to individuals.
- iamnothere 12d ago
  Societies don’t have the right to decide what is and isn’t false information and prevent people from accessing or spreading it. (They think they do, and that’s a problem.) Fighting misinformation has to happen through establishing and maintaining trust, and providing trusted counters to misinformation. Establishing trust requires alignment with the people you want to trust you. Interference (as opposed to participation) in the free flow of information and the process by which truth is determined is a great evil.
  - mitxela 11d ago
    We tried that, it didn't work.
    - account42 11d ago
      You mean it wasn't profitable enough for the elite.
- account42 11d ago
  The greatest harmful misinformation at all is that the government should be the arbiter of truth. The purpose of a democratic government is to reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.
the_gipsy 12d ago
Ok but what about "being directly interfered with by foreign actors"? This is what's happening right now in Spain. Foreign interference (Ceuta, Dept. Of Homeland evidence...), followed up by foreign social media manipulation campaigns. Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government. This is a direct threat to democracy.
- iamnothere 12d ago
  Is it a threat to democracy if citizens gather facts from foreign actors when their domestic government attempts to suppress those facts? On a general level, not speaking to this situation in particular. Just curious.
  - the_gipsy 11d ago
    Weird way to frame this argument as a question. The domestic government holding a monopoly on information is a threat, and foreign information can be a relief, yes. Foreign misinformation is also a threat, and domestic government shutting it out can also be a relief. So you have to ask yourself, where are we? Is Spain (or any European country that is not currently bootlicking, for that matter) a dictatorship that needs Freedom messages in a bottle from the USA, or is the USA directly subverting their democracies with espionage? Why did the USA give millions to Morocco earlier this summer? Why did the Dept. of Homeland (so espionage) produce decade old evidence of corruption in a former administration that would be linked to the current one, at this precise time? Just asking questions here.
    - iamnothere 11d ago
      All nations are under pressure to hide information from their citizens, whether it’s for covering up political scandals or suppressing political opposition. If you give them the tools, they will eventually use them. So you can’t give them the tools. The democratic way to fight misinformation is with public trust, a well educated population, and by publishing true information to counter misinformation. Anything less treats citizens as children who can’t be trusted to form their own opinions.

rdm_blackhole 12d ago

> misinformation Who decides what is misinformation? The state? The ministry of truth? That is the problem with this sort of wishful thinking. > used to manipulate the population The media industry manipulates opinions via TV channels and newspapers and has done so for the last 50 years. Heck, some states have their own TV channels like the BBC, France Info (France) , SVT (Sweden) which is completely ironic since the state funds them and there is no way to know how neutral these are. > dangerous information Dangerous information is a misnomer. You could print out how to build an atom bomb and give the step-by-step instructions for free in entire neighborhoods and no one will be able to build it because you need the right expertise and the materials to create one. Same with bio-weapons unless you think you can develop these in your kitchen after work? Secondly, we are back to the same problem. Who decides what is "dangerous information" and how far would you be willing to go to contain it? Censor social media? Censor private messages? What about emails? Textbooks? Listening devices in all homes? Cameras that you can't turn off in your toilet in case you pass information to someone else while taking a crap?

latexr 12d ago
I find your argument to be in extreme bad faith. Instead of steel manning the argument, you are repeatedly straw manning it. Certainly you can understand that deliberately lying about, for example, areas where the science is overwhelming such as vaccines or climate change, is misinformation. I explicitly said I don’t have a solution, your introduction of a “ministry of truth”, “wishful thinking”, censorship and surveillance are your own fabrications, not part of my argument.
- r3trohack3r 11d ago
  “The memo says we have to work to make the facts meet the false charges to pull the wool over the eyes of the filthy masses”
- dtho 11d ago
  Censorship can be used to monopolize the spread of misinformation.
- 11d ago