Can science help to solve the problem of mis/disinformation? Bad information is a societal disease and causes many problems. I'm not talking about any political side or other group, just the phenomenon in general, which I think is widespread. The world would be a better place without bad info, or having some source of truth trusted by everyone
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Misinformation and disinformation don't exist. If we operate on an information free for all basis without outright censoring information you'll naturally have a majority opinion which will naturally filter out bad information
Simple as
You know why covid information got so polarised? Because it was censored. Because instead of simply talking to each other people just said NOO BELIEVE THE SCIENCE and then others said NOO DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENCE
and everything went to hell
Let everyone make their case, publicly and engage honestly and bad information actors will destroy themselves
Bad information actors depend on polarisation, they thrive because of it. They don't create it. The superstructure that censors information creates polarisation. Nothing else.
Let people say Covid is a hoax. Then ask them how and why and they'll fail in their answers eventually if they're wrong. Let maskers say masking is important. Then ask them how and why and they'll fail in their answers eventually if they're wrong.
The majority won't fully understand but they're very capable of filtering out bullshit.
In the end, the fault lies with a society that demands answers to questions science can't fully provide.
Masking might help a little, but not enough to fully resolve the issue. And most young people aren't at risk. That would've been a fair assessment and based on that the government could say well the science isn't fully settled, we don't know what's best to do. In fact the most reasonable thing to do would be to let everyone decide on their own and this is all the information we've got. Take it with some grains of salt because science isn't a settled subject.
Then some people would've felt better wearing a mask. And others would've done it because they felt it might help others, and others wouldn't have felt it necessary. And again others would only mask if they were sick. That way everyone could do what they thought was best
That's how you create natural healthy consensus. Simple as
>Misinformation and disinformation don't exist
It would be good if they didn't, but they do. Misinfo is sharing bad info by mistake, disinfo is sharing bad info on purpose.
Telling someone the bus comes at 8am because you think it comes at 8am but you're actually wrong and it comes at 9am is misinfo. Telling someone the bus comes at 8am but you actually know it comes at 9am is disinfo
>Pew Research reports shared that approximately one in four American adults admitted to sharing misinformation on their social media platforms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation
So about 25% of people admit to sharing misinfo online. Because it's misinfo and not disinfo this would mean that they most likely shared something they thought was true but some time later found out what they shared was actually false. But by then the damage is done
But yeah the question I guess is more about how can we significantly reduce mis/disinfo but without using unfavourable methods like heavy censorship
you haven't properly read my post at all
I'm saying pew research is an American think tank and Wikipedia is overrun by gays. They've got political power behind them that profits off keeping the concepts of disinformation alive. You know what disinformation used to be called? Lying. If someone's lying, argue with him and you'll find out his lies. If he's arguing truthfully, according to what he knows, then he might be right, or you can inform him, depending on how much you know.
Disinformation and misinformation according to how you've defined them aren't bad. They're good. They're people speaking their truths and the majority will take on what they see as truth. If there's open and honest discussion there won't be an issue in the end.
I read what you wrote and it seemed like you misunderstood what I was talking about so I thought I would clarify. I didn't really agree with what you said too but didn't want to make this a political thread
>You know what disinformation used to be called? Lying. Disinformation and misinformation according to how you've defined them aren't bad. They're good. They're people speaking their truths and the majority will take on what they see as truth
I...don't even really know what to say to this. I'm just using mis/disinfo as they're defined in the dictionary. They have specific meanings. They're not new buzzwords.
Fair but it's become a polarised subject so it's hard to accept that someone wants to honestly engage in this.
I don't think we should be using disinfo or misinfo at all. Those words have been poisoned by covid and weren't used publicly before covid. Using them now only invokes more covid-esque feelings.
But disinfo and misinfo like you're describing are simply good. People lie. Let them. Let others hear their lies. Then people will naturally figure it out on their own.
Flat earthers are dismissed because they're allowed to speak about it in public. Because everyone can listen to them and go like lol I think you're saying bullshit.
Covid, race, gender, have all become polarised. Because you're not allowed to hear all view points. It's as simple as that.
But I like most others also participate in polarisation. I have to because else I get called a covid denialist etc. etc. even though that's not what I think at all. So since others polarise, I have to do so as well.
The real origin of polarisation however is the government shutting down discussion and creating the initial conditions that cause polarisation.
It's never individuals that cause it. They only exacerbate what is ultimately created by the government not allowing dissenting views to be discussed.
Because the government took a side, now it's over. Social contract is damaged. I hate and despise my government now. Frick bureaucrats etc. etc.
They took my opinion and turned it into a caricature and told me I was wrong as if they were arbiters of truth.
Like temple priests sacrificing young virgins by burning them alive swearing up and down that if we do not do this, the spring rains will not fall.
>Because you're not allowed to hear all view points.
Then why can you describe in great detail and find numerous infographs detailing all these view points?
>Like temple priests sacrificing young virgins by burning them alive swearing up and down that if we do not do this, the spring rains will not fall.
How can they even exist in your natural world where people figure out the truth on their own instead of relying on some coalition of authority like priests of a temple?
>Then why can you describe in great detail and find numerous infographs detailing all these view points?
Because we're on IQfy which is known for allowing dissent. You can't say any of this shit irl without getting shitcanned for it. Stop playing dumb Black person.
>How can they even exist in your natural world where people figure out the truth on their own instead of relying on some coalition of authority like priests of a temple?
None of this is what I said. You've shown me that you're not honest or open. You just want an authoritarian figure to control your life. Frick off slave. You know it works like this
>multiple temple organisations all declare they know the truth
>talk to all of them
>some seem reasonable
>some batshit crazy
>majority opinion forms
>crazies start sacrificing their kids at the crazy temples
>most just give some grain to cute fertility goddess
>don't fight each other
>everyone reasonably happy
>society thrives
but you're the kind of lowlife Black person slave who wants someone to control your life
you want one temple demanding child sacrifices and you don't want to think for your self by basing yourself off of multiple sources of information.
>where people figure out the truth on their own instead of relying on some coalition of authority like priests
That's why you've chosen to completely misinterpret the point that I was making.
Why would you pretend to be open to discussion and once honestly engaged immediately switch back to NUHUH YOU SAID NEVER NO TRUST ANYONE JUST MAKE. UP UR OWN TRUTH ALWAYS THAT WHAT U SAY AND NEVER EVER EVER LISTEN TO ANY FIGURE OF AUTHORITY EVER THAT WHAT U SAY
have a nice day trash
>You can't say any of this shit irl without getting shitcanned for it.
The GOP won't even employ you if you don't spread that kind of information, you just sound like you are b***hing that private places can restrict whatever they want in their private spaces if you are worrying about your wagemaster banishing you if you speak out of line.
>You just want an authoritarian figure to control your life.
No, I barely engage society, but civility is an authority unto its own, commerce, division of labor, free trade, requires rules and consensus, but if you are talking about nature, people are herd animals and tend to follow powerful charismatic leaders who offer them hope and a sense of purposeful productivity.
>everyone reasonably happy
That is not reasonable or honest in nature, there is no natural truth, consensus, or collaboration arrived at by the parties, that is just deadlock and emotional coping.
>wants someone to control your life
I obviously don't which is why I don't believe you that the government meaningfully prevents anyone from hearing all viewpoints and I don't think an open market of ideas prevents bullshit temples and priests from arising and having undue power, I think you just work for some globohomosexual organization that would fire you if they knew the opinions you espoused and are projecting that mind state.
>It would be good if they didn't, but they do.
Prove it
>misinfo
>disinfo
Fricking Newspeak.
Disinformation is a term from the 50s and misinformation is from the 1500s. These are not new terms and are used all the time
No one used those terms in the 00's or the early 10's. Suddenly they popped back up. That's called newspeak. They have nothing to do with their old definitions. Also if disinformation was coined in the 50's it was 10000% a CIA psyop. Everything between 1950 and 1990 was nothing but CIA and Society psyops.
>No one used those terms in the 00's or the early 10's. Suddenly they popped back up.
They're used all the time. Haven't you ever heard people say "disinfo agents" or something like that in movies before ? Here's a search for "misinformation" on google books for books from the 20th century, there's hundreds of results
https://www.google.com/search?q=misinformation&sca_esv=78007b2132e03760&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn09jsLAkrTWkhEfiWSxfs86t7XJcTQ:1710949357846&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:1999&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQxc-Fl4OFAxVsklYBHRP6BMAQpwV6BAgBEBU&biw=1366&bih=607&dpr=1
You can find any word in academic literature.
The anon is saying the word wasn't used in the public and in the media, and suddenly it was all over the place during Covid.
And anon is right.
Stop spreading disinfo, homosexual.
It been pretty popular terminology over since david icke/alex jones/ron paul days and eventually pizzagate where it turned into fake news, well before covid.
False. I've literally never heard the word being used in any kind of news before Covid.
Stop spreading disinformation.
Look into all the stuff I said and the 9/11 truther movement since the term was heavily applied to them and simply address your ignorance instead of literally just talking about yourself on social media instead, zoomer.
I have memory, moron. No amount of gaslighting can make me doubt my own sanity.
Stop spreading disinformation, israelite.
You don't remember everything, especially the things you didn't pay attention to in the first place and you still can't stop talking about yourself instead of just proving your claims.
>In fact the most reasonable thing to do would be to let everyone decide on their own and this is all the information we've got.
That is not reasonable for modern society at all since it isn't equally applied and just lets bad actors manipulate and cancel civil contracts just because they decided on their own.
No it is reasonable. Humans can decide on their own. This has worked for thousands of years.
>pantheon of gods
>some worship this one
>some another
it's literally has always worked
Diversity of thought/opinion is a strength as long as they're continuously discussing with each other.
Bad actors only do not manipulate. The state / superstructure that controls information flows manipulates / censors information. That is what causes polarisation. Nothing else.
If I stand somewhere and start yelling about covid is a hoax and the government just lets me, I might gather a small following. But if I get challenged and can't show how I'm right I'll lose that following. If the government instead locks me up and beats my followers and spreads the news that I'm evil and spreading disinformation, that's how you get opposition to the government / superstructure that determines information flows. Bad actors do not manipulate in the way you think they do. They can only lie. A government that acts improperly against those bad actors and censors them. That is the manipulation those bad actors want. Any sane person who gets told "you're not allowed to know this because it is evil" will start to search it out.
Civil contracts do not get canceled by bad actors. You've got it completely wrong. The bad actors lie. The government censors those lies. People react to the censorship. Not the lies. If you instead honestly engage those lies and discuss them, their merit or non-merit will come through. Then people will naturally disengage because they see that the bad actor is lying or only providing partial information that they can't fully depend on.
The fault of polarisation and manipulation and censorship lies with the government and that entity alone is what decides if polarisation happens. Bad actors will simply get weeded out in any free society.
Btw the government broke the civil contract by denying free speech. They're at fault. Do you agree with this?
>land of kingdoms
>some indentured to this one
>some another
You are literally talking about bringing back slavery because some charismatic leader decided certain groups of people aren't real people.
>discussing
There is no real discussing when you can just decide the truth instead of relying on some consensus to govern civil interaction as equals.
>Civil contracts do not get canceled by bad actors.
I agree that the government has a lot of power and since postjfk has mostly subverted its own laws being filled with useful idiots who claim more certainty than is justified, but bad actors being restricted by contract law is only because there is currently a consensus legal system that governs civility and applies standards equally, but if everyone just gets to decide their own laws on the basis of medical exemption, that system breaks down because bad actors can just validate their bad actions by saying they just decided it would endanger their life.
>government censors
Information warfare has existed long before censorship.
>people will naturally
People naturally fall for lies on a grand scale and the more the lies seem to offer and the more the passion of the liar, the more they are willing to believe lies to the point of their own demise sometimes.
I don't necessarily think its a bad thing to prevent bad actors from convincing destitute morons that death by some terrorist act that benefits the bad actor will earn the moron a bunch of horny virgins as soon as they die, but censoring things when you don't know the facts just ends in arguing over what is is and going in circles about what is free speech until suddenly money is free speech and someone just pays them to shut up.
>The majority won't fully understand but they're very capable of filtering out bullshit.
You are delusional and don't know anything, a very apt demonstration of misinformation.
Fairytales and superstitions are bullshit, yet the majority believe in them. And they have believed them since the dawn of time. Why? Because a majority of people are ignorant. They don't know enough to determine whether something is or isn't bullshit! Worse yet many people don't even care, and or don't have enough time, intelligence or resources to figure things out for themselves. It's how you get religions. It's how you get snake oil salesmen. It's why the majority believing in something, doesn't make it fact.
So no, the general public can't be trusted as an arbiter of truth.
>Fairytales and superstitions are bullshit
This little Black person doesn't know about shit. You're just pathetic scum who needs an authority daddy figure to tell you what to believe.
The sad truth is you think you know better than everyone else, and you don't. At all. You're just as stupid as everyone else but you've actually deluded yourself into thinking you're better.
You people are the reason why 20M Chinese starved during communism. And. why 20M Russians starved during soviet times.
I know exactly what type of people you are. You're the trash of this world who should never ever be allowed to have any say about anyone. Let me be real clear. You're the type of person no one would take seriously in an open and free and honest society. That's why you're so desperate to shut it down
And deep down, deep deep down behind that fake intellectual facade you've created, mostly for yourself because others can see through it, you know it's true.
I just want you to know one thing. You don't change anything. I will continue being open and honest with others because that's the best way to find out people like you. You cannot exist in an open and honest society so your best bet is to poison everything around you so you can take the reigns by becoming a little authoritarian homosexual.
Once people realise what you are, they'll despise you so much. You're the type of person people tortured to death while everyone watched to make sure you were dead by the end of it.
I have seen your dirty little trick
Black person.
>t. theist who desperately screams into the void every day hoping to eventually join the ultimate magical authority daddy figure in heaven as soon as he is dead
You have to unequivocally prove the truth first and that is not possible due to the Munchhausen Trilemma.
Let the scientific discourse remaining open, allow exploration of every idea to it's limit and peer reviews. Whatever flawed idea there is will surface after digging through enough layers of assumptions.
Misinformation only thrives when half baked ideas are censored and not thoroughly debunked. Particularly because of political taboos
>Whatever flawed idea there is will surface after digging through enough layers of assumptions.
Yea that sure works with all the gods and doesn't just lead to some rhetorical explosion of circular and/or regressive arguments that eventually breaks down into tribal rivalry instead of ever being thoroughly debunked through the past several centuries or so of dogmatic fighting and infighting.
I will die fighting before I let any bureaucrat control what I can or cannot say.
When in doubt just use a coin, call it.
A more equal wealth distribution might unironically be the key to fighting mis/dis-information.
It'd be easy for people to see that Covid19 is real, if everyone and their grandma had an election microscope in their basement laboratory. They could simply just look at the viruses with their own eyes.
But in current times, people can't afford that. So they have no other choice but to trust people who do have access to electron microscopes (the experts).
*electron microscope
Who is the arbiter? On whose authority is some information deemed valid, invalid, or malicious?
>Who is the arbiter?
Evidence
>On whose authority is some information deemed valid, invalid, or malicious?
Whoever ratified the laws of logic.
Who decides which evidence is acceptable/valid to support a claim?
Experimentation and Measurement, the expectations are established ahead of time and the theory is modified as long as measured evidence mismatches expectation.
Who determines the expectations? Who conducts the measurements?
>Who determines the expectations?
The Theory
>Who conducts the measurements?
The Instruments
*The Instruments
Or The Sensor might be a more apt description.
So you think american politics are supernatural and you think its true that the republican party fires rather than celebrates people who say covid was a lie?
I never said that those parties weren't also in a moronic deadlock and eternal seethe/cope cycle, just that nature doesn't always provide any clear answers and there is no real way to naturally just figure out any of the big questions other than purely through semantics that can just as easily be disagreed with.
In every society prior to our current postmodern absurdity, most disagreement was allowed. Even in medieval christian states there was a ton of disagreement and it was generally allowed to some degree. The fact that nature doesn't provide clear answers is why you get multiple organisations claiming to know the absolute truth. And is the exact reason why you shouldn't let some group determine what is and what isn't true. Because any group will at some point be right, and at some point be wrong.
You've not understood a single thing I've said and I'm dead sure you've done it on purpose.
Frick off.
Reread this post and then have a nice day. Or maybe first have a nice day and then reread this post. Whichever you want.
>most disagreement was allowed.
It still is allowed and the political parties exemplify it, its just people like you who clearly work for and use free globohomosexual services who are so on edge about getting shitcanned and having your opinion constantly being censored.
>you shouldn't let some group determine what is and what isn't true.
If you enter into contracts and you work for organizations that have certain values, you have to accept the organization is the one that gets to decide for you, but banning disagreement is not in tune with the modern political process that keeps the wheels turning with constant disagreement and deadlock, its a function of the modern mega corpse orations who want the dead to speak for you and to be able instead of letting people speak freely in order to sell whatever for however much they can get without opposition.
>If you enter into contracts and you work for organizations that have certain values, you have to accept the organization is the one that gets to decide for you
Yes that is why your existential problem is most likely with the contracts you have with the multinational social media megacorpse who blocked your badspeak on behalf of their sister corpse, the largest criminal fine in history entity, rather than your government for outlawing any speech.
>In every society prior to our current postmodern absurdity, most disagreement was allowed.
I'm not convinced of that in the slightest.
I obviously can't just take your word for it. Give me some trustworthy archeological records!
>You've not understood a single thing I've said
Have you tried writing better? Writing in all caps and spamming obscenities makes you sound like an 80IQ schizo off their meds.
I've seen your dismissal pretending the government didn't suppress dissident information. You're not a serious conversation partner. Everyone here can see it. You can pretend you're playing nice now. But it's obvious you're just baiting.
I see how you moved the goalposts from "getting shittcanned" because "you are not allowed to hear the view point" to mere suppression.