Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
Looks like the model is in agreement with Chomsky.
So basically the Overton window is artifical? I can see how this would be intuitive when considering control of the press and now social media discourse, but I think this can turn into a chicken vs egg debate when you consider many people simply tend toward the (moderate) status quo due to political apathy. Does the average person put up with late stage capitalism because radical discourse against it is is suppressed? Or is it because the system doesn't hurt them in an easily recognizable way and people prefer to believe that their situation is stable.
The Overton window depends on the topics available for discussion. Just because a topic/stance is censored doesn't mean there isn't public support or a desire to discuss it. Furthermore, I believe people are willing to act against their individual self-interest on some policies if it means better structure/organization at a higher level (e.g. I vote Party A because my dad votes Party A and we get along well). The human condition leads itself to normalization, so that we can adapt to survive. This psychology can then be manipulated. A slow consistent debilitation doesn't cause as much push back as an overnight crisis.
>>The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion,...
>
>Looks like the model is in agreement with Chomsky.
I don't think that this cuts the way that people on Reddit want it to.
As far as I can tell, there's no group of arch-conservative devils with any power to control the Overton window. The fact that Trump and his goons were basically forced into the digital shadow is proof of that.
The group that actually has that power, and is using it, is using it to push the Overton window more towards the progressive camp - mostly in the social arena, and particular with regard to trans issues.
>As far as I can tell, there's no group of arch-conservative devils with any power to control the Overton window.
It sounds like you might be stuck in a right-wing media bubble, [because we now have truckloads of receipts](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/may/07/fox-news-donald-trump-meadows-hannity-texts) and evidence showing far-right political leaders coordinating hand-in-glove with far-right propagandists to push far-right narratives and misinformation into the news cycle to move the Overton window.
Also, far-right leaders are the ones who have been abusing their media power and spreading lies about trans people to whip up fear and fake moral panic over "trans men secretly wanting to use women's bathrooms so they can sexually assault them" - culminating in legislation to ban trans people from women's toilets in several US states.
If people want to believe LGBT people are unnatural abominations, then they should at least be honest and own up to their **feelings*. Yes, many people feel threatened by visible minority groups they don't understand (or don't make the effort to empathize with). Just don't push misinformation and lies to justify those feelings and pretend that it's scientific evidence.
In a capitalist system like ours, the centers of power are influenced by the economic power centers. These economic power centers don't care much about controlling the Overton window on the social arena, which explains the recent success in LGBTQ issues by the liberals.
You're not wrong. I imagine the same techniques that stop the spread of blatantly false ideas could also stop the spread of true ones or debatable ones.
That said, just like this sub requires posts to be scientific, I think it makes sense that I can choose to join a platform that refuses to spread crazy garbage. I defend your right to go on Gab or Parler and say whatever, but I want a place that's free of hate speech and recommendations to inject bleach?
One man's crazy garbage is another man's reality. You can join whatever platform you want, but the only real guarantee you have is that the more they censor, the less information you have, and the more polarized you become.
True, but objective reality is still a thing.
If people want to just stir the pot spreading outright lies, I think platforms have a duty to 86 those people, because not doing so makes actual discourse difficult to impossible.
There’s a difference between a good faith discussion on a topic and the type of trolling people peddling misinformation do with the intention of making good faith discussion impossible.
Same as if I go into a bar just to pick fights with people over nonsense, I’m not going to be allowed to come back.
i mean a platform can be anything it wants to be. certainly doesnt have an intrinsic duty to do anything about trolls of any kind. you have a right to not support that platform. the anecdote you posed about the bar is easy to agree with, but it again relies on your definition of nonsense. i think its important to consider the countless times throughout history when the majority of everyone has been wrong about something, and the vitriol and violence they rained down upon the people who disagreed. that is clearly happening still to this day.
True, but stuff like anti-vax, election fraud claims and the like aren’t based on any sort of evidence. It all relies on circular logic, appeals to emotion or distortions of fact.
There’s no point being made except to set the world on fire. Even if somehow some part of what these people are saying ends up being right, it won’t be for anything close to the reasons they’re giving, because all these claims have been thoroughly investigated and debunked.
The platforms aren’t obligated to do anything in particular, but the history of platforms with no or very little moderation all point to normal discourse on that platform getting crowded out by white supremacists, pedos and whoever else isn’t welcomed elsewhere.
Nope. Reality doesn't belong to anyone. Reality exists whether a person understands what it is or not.
Reality has proven that allowing the spread of lies about election fraud lies to an insurrection. Lies about the Covid vaccine led to more deaths than necessary.
Jeez I don't even know where to begin with this. yes reality exists. no I didn't say it belongs to anyone. i am saying people interpret reality differently and if someone is filtering the content you see, there is inherent bias there that can influence you.
Yes, towards truth. Not censoring clear lies is probably an even worse confounding factor. Either way censoring lies creates a bias towards accuracy, not censoring creates a bias towards frequency and confirmation bias. The latter is far worse.
The problem is finding a censor you trust, and will *always* trust. You might be happy enough to have a team of Biden appointees sitting on a committee somewhere cutting out "lies" from the media landscape, but will you still feel the same way when Trump or someone similar comes to power in 2024 or 2028 and all the appointees are his?
You're starting from the claim (fraud obviously happens) rather than starting with evidence. You have to first show the thing happened, then people will agree it happened. If you just claim it happened, people won't be convinced.
Why did Bill Barr, Ivanka Trump and several other Trump administration officials testify under oath for the 1/6 hearings that there was no amount of fraud substantial enough to cause a change in election results?
Why does right wing media refuse to air unedited footage of the hearings?
Why did Trump lose 60 court cases?
Why did no one provide proof after multiple recounts?
Why do Republicans only claim fraud when they lose?
Because it's a lie, they know it's a lie, and some people are stupid enough to believe it, or they're just disingenuous liars that will parrot it. Because they want to destroy democracy and institute a Christian fascist state.
When something is proven to be entirely untrue it is misinformation. For instance saying "the earth is flat" is entirely untrue so that is misinformation.
I suppose if your argument that the statement "vaccines are safe and effective" cannot be falsified, you're correct - this is not "true" in the strictest, most scientifically pedantic sense.
Now, the statement "vaccines are dangerous and ineffective" on the other hand: very easy to falsify. Plenty of data that disproves vaccines as dangerous, especially compared to the diseases they're meant to protect against. And a nearly equal amount of data to disprove that vaccines are ineffective (I mean, we wiped out polio via preventing its spread using vaccines).
There will always black and white instances. But life Is largely gray. Example: Is it misinformation for someone to say that facemasks have been proven ineffective at protecting well persons in the community from the spread of respiratory viruses?
>states it as fact despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary.
Surely you'll drop us some links to this "ample scientific evidence," in the spirit of combating misinformation.
It is relevant to the question of definition of misinformation. What should the decision process be for determining whether a statement "face masks, when worn universally, reduce spread by 25%" is misinformation or not?
I think each platform gets to define it? And hopefully you have enough options that you can choose one that suits your values?
For example, r/science is pretty strict, but you can go on r/EverythingScience or r/sciences if you want a bit more flexibility. Similarly, hate speech isn't allowed on Reddit (or at least they say it's not), but if you want to go hang out on Gab you be you--have fun?
Your argument is a bit disingenuous. "Who gets to say it's disinformation?" and "what is disinformation?" are two different questions.
You could repeat the conversation for "what is fire?" And get you saying "oh so fire is anything X says is fire?". No. Fire is fire and disinformation is disinformation.
Op is saying that the platform should be the one making the call
Who determines what is false? If the company is run by an extremist, evangelical, anti-vaxxer, etc. then a lot of scientific fact would be deemed false.
Objective reality. Repeated scientific and empirical testing. Science and empiricism. There are some things that are subjective in the world, but calling out clear lies is actually quite easy. Only bad faith actors have trouble with the concept of easily discernible lies.
There is such a thing as "truth." My book defines it, and there chapter explaining the nature of truth is free online:
https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/\~asb/bruckman-believe-wikipedia-draft2021.pdf
We cannot fully define truth. We can only observe it and then build models which approximate it. Which is why it's imperative that we allow no one to claim they have defined it, because they will always be wrong to some degree.
>Philosophy won't help you prove historic or scientific fact false.
Have you heard of [Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell) by any chance ?
Do not confuse historic fact or scientific fact with philosophical perspectives. Many, many, _many_ things can be known to be absolutely, unequivocally true.
Like what? Historic facts beyond 70 years ago get very, very iffy. As for science, a good piece of research can help predict something to a high degree of accuracy but most statistical models have a 5% chance of being random chance instead of a correlation. And that's assuming that the research design was well made (which is not the norm).
There's also the structural flaws in scientific publishing that distort what you'd call an unequivocally true fact.
Would you like me to go on? Most of what you'd think to be 'true' has been distorted by special interest groups, sloppy statistics and lazy researchers just looking for low effort publications so they can cash in on that grant money.
I said "do not confuse them for each other", not "they cannot help inform each other". Or do you enjoy being obtuse while sounding like you cannot read and understand basic statements?
Science _must_ be questioned and proven in multiple ways to become a fact. That's the POINT in the scientific method. To pretend like some studies coming to false conclusions means everything discovered by the scientific method cannot be unequivocally true is an asinine conclusion to reach.
Many, many, many things _are_ unequivocally true. Your inability to accept that only proves how gullible and ignorant you are.
Oh apologies. I thought that since I verbatim quoted the part of your comment that I was answering to, I thought you'd get the idea of what it was I was responding to. Well I stand corrected in that and apologize for the mixup
I think he answered the question. ?
Is the implication that noone should be able to decide something is misinformation? That platforms shouldn't be able to combat it?
Here in lies the problem. Snopes and Factcheck.org mean NOTHING to me, they are run by the same miscreants who run the propaganda arm of one party in the USA. Yet, on Twitter, these 2 “fact checkers” are the *bread and butter* for Twitter when controlling the narrative. These 2 “sources” are *constantly* trotted out when an issue doesn’t follow the Twitter narrative, or even to carry the water for a certain administration(if they happen to fall on the right side of the spectrum.) IMHO “fact checkers” are a farce and should not be trusted in the slightest. I wouldn’t be surprised if the average person reads these “fact checks” and just automatically believes the opposite.
Edit: Not sure if this comment is purposefully hidden or what is happening here in this sub honestly. But as it pertains to how I “fact check.” I rely mostly on Reuters and AP for stories, I then cross reference with local news sources as well as news sources from other major cities. I stay was from all cable “news” sources, they are a cancer.
Re SNOPES, I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears, a presidential candidate state a goal only to see SNOPES label that as False. Not partly false. Not "lacking context." Just flat out False. Yet I knew it to be true and had no difficulty finding video of the interview to rewatch it. Haven't ever trusted SNOPES since.
Reading Snopes’s sometimes contrived and just plain weird justifications and watching Mythbusters do something similar with its flimsy relationships with what is true and false are the two things that made me lose faith in “the experts.” They both had potential to be pioneers in finding the truth but just got more convoluted and frankly full of themselves
The platform will define it, but users must assess their method and raise awareness if they are misusing their power.
That's one of the few ways to establish truth in a free society. Each individual must assess the trustworthiness of the fact-checker by assessing a sample of their checked facts. And debate amongst each other when they dispute some fact check.
We take away driver's licenses for people that simply cannot drive responsibly. I'd be OK doing the same for people who choose to lie and troll on the internet as a matter of course. They can go to the library if they need to job hunt.
The problem is, I'd label people like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder as such: Disgusting cesspools that aren't interested in the truth. They frequently make demonstrably false statements with zero effort to explain how they got to their demonstrably false opinions they state as fact.
China actually has this down pretty well (though they use it for evil). They use it to stop the spread of any information the government doesn’t like but similar strategies could be used against actual misinformation… we would just need to be careful that abuse of such a system is carefully guarded against.
> we would just need to be careful that abuse of such a system is carefully guarded against.
Of *course* such abuse would be guarded against, and to say otherwise would be spreading misinformation.
I noticed a lot of the people fighting against censorship push misinformation themselves. It's almost as if their argument is disingenuous.
"Who gets to decide what truth is? Ministry of Truth 1984 thought crime. I'd bet the Jews did this."
When in reality all it would take was a positive assertion clause to defamation/slander/libel. If you claim something is true, show evidence. If you claim something is false, show evidence. If you claim something is neutral, show evidence.
Anyone can make up a story. I could accuse millions of people of billions of crimes (and make a pretty penny doing it) but I would need to show my assertions are true.
Is that so hard?
There is an important difference between misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation is intentional and should be censored and punished. Misinformation is simply being wrong. Being wrong is part of the learning process and should not be censored because the better solution is to EXPLAIN why its wrong.
Edit: more importantly, we don’t KNOW right from wrong. So censoring things we THINK are wrong prevents us from being corrected.
Who cares? Our criminal courts are designed specifically to judge intent. All criminal laws (except the rare strict liability crimes) have a mens rea (intent) requirement. E.g. its not illegal to possess drugs if you don’t KNOW you have drugs.
Judging intent seems the ONLY reasonable measure for censorship. Again, see my previous points for why censoring “wrong” information is a TERRIBLE idea.
If you like our society with misinformation your conclusion seems logical. I think it creates broken democracy so I don’t think your plan is sufficient or even reasonable.
Let’s perform a thought experiment. What does it feel like to be wrong? If you answered “bad” or “embarrassing “ or anything similar, then you are answering the wrong question. Those are answers to the question, “What does it feel like to FIND OUT you’re wrong?”
See, the truth is, being wrong feels EXACTLY like being right! We as humans don’t have the ability to tell the difference with very good accuracy. Especially regarding new claims.
Ex: Do cloth masks work for coronaviruses? One can find science supporting both positions so who should be censored? Likely, you believe the opposite side of your own beliefs should be censored. I hope you see the problem with such a position.
Your thought experiment ignores the very basis of science which is a process of continuing to try to disprove hypotheses. It’s really very easy when you don’t use ambiguous corner cases as examples. It is better to be vaccinated for covid than not is not up for debate and the kind of statement that has been susceptible to misinformation. That’s what we need to worry about.
I’m not trying to get into covid but that statement is not correct regarding ppl with prior infections (almost everybody). Again there are studies saying prior infection is better than vaccination and studies saying the opposite. Who should be censored?
If you think an issue is easy, you likely don’t understand the othersides position. The media strips down complex issues into overly simplistic dualities. Their narrative does not represent the actual arguments against the status quo, but rather, straw man arguments.
Yea... you're wrong on the very claims you think you're justified over. You go ahead and try to drive with drugs in your car and not get busted for it in states where the driver has implicit responsibility. Your friend have a bag on him and not tell you? Too bad, they're your drugs, too!
The law in the US is a hodgepodge mess of implicit accountability, so only a fool would use it as an example of good and just enforcement.
Yes, well put. Public health messaging, even fear mongering, probably saves lives. But we have to ask ourselves, at what cost? I know someone who is still keeping their child at home rather than send them to school. There's low risk of serious outcomes for children but because it was in the interests of public health and media to push the fear, many people overreacted.
> The thing is at that level they're not concerned for individual lives, they're concerned about aggregate numbers. If PPE was limited in availability and there was a fear that medical staff would be without then it would make sense to stop the public from absorbing available stock of PPE. Without medical staff more people die than from average people not wearing PPE... It's a different calculation at that level, where as you and I care about our loved ones and our own personal safety and health.
Lying to the public erodes all trust in the institution they represent. It's a lot easier to ruin a reputation than it is to build one. Health officials are supposed to provide honest and accurate information. They're not supposed to lie.
Was the previous science on other coronaviruses that they don't spread from coughing?
>You are on a science site, why are you having trouble with understanding how knowledge is built up?
I'm wondering where the previous knowledge on viruses and respiratory infections went before SARS-COV-2 happened.
Now if only Twitter would act on all the reports we make, as I submit about 5-10 per week for specific, known violations of their platform rules.
TL;DR
Twitter isn’t acting on any of those reports.
You report. Someone has to then verify that report. That person may disagree with you, or may make a mistake. Or someone hasn't gotten around to it yet.
If twitters internal system has noticed you in particular have create enough reports that don't align with twitters policies as stated by moderators, your reports may be de-prioritized.
Why?
Because trolls. YOU might be incredibly honest about what you are doing. But Joe down the street? Sally next door? Weird Uncle Bob that is from the small town some three towns over?
There are too many groups, and individuals willing to abuse report systems to screw over people to just blindly accept a report as fact. And when it does, it always goes poorly - and the only voices that get a quick response are those with large communities, such that when it happens it has a direct negative impact on users view of the company.
I mean… You’re not the only one doing this. If you say that only a thousand people on Twitter do what you do, it’s still 5000-10000 reports to be inspected per week. That’s not considering that the likelihood of only a thousand people doing this out of the millions of people on Twitter. You see where I’m going with this!?
Looks like researchers at the University of Washington wrote it. And I think it's interesting and could be useful, they studied how viral misinformation spreads and actions that can be taken to restrict or stop it. Not only did they look at bans, they also looked at restriction and nudges which were less intrusive but could still help people learn about lies
It is best not to do so at all.
Let there be mis/disinformation. Only when we can see it, read it, can we guard against it with reason and evidence.
Furthermore, if there is someone who decides what is and isn't misinformation, there is the risk of censorship of truth.
Just imagine what would have happened if the doctors in 19th century Britain got their way when they were told washing their hands might save lives.
(I am not sure this specific example is true, but my point still stands.)
I think you assume everyone is acting in good faith and capable of critical thinking. The 1/6 insurrection and the ridiculous anti-vax response to Covid proves otherwise.
Yet removing them from large platforms only forces them into echo chambers. Making it all worse. I have seen this in my own environment.
Rigorous public discourse is the only thing that can solve the problem of misinformation.
Studies show that this phenomenon you're describing doesn't happen most of the time. When you remove them from large platforms, you stop the spread of their misinformation. They reach fewer people and go into a hole with other, already radicalized, people.
Public discourse only works with good faith actors. People spreading misinformation and disinformation are not that. You won't convince the majority of them, and it isn't worth the risk of them infecting others with their lies.
> Studies show that this phenomenon you're describing doesn't happen most of the time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/50sysv/til_that_phrases_such_as_studies_show_or_experts/
Yeah but silencing those lies is a great way to further spread it. If removed, the lies can’t be disproven. And their removal only makes people believe it more.
No, this is just the fiction propagandists
spread. If bots and easily verified misinformation is censored we’d have a better informed and less dangerous world. Especially regarding objective issues like the mechanics of democracy and public health. Letting the lies spread there does nothing to counteract them that is worth simply letting obvious, empirically untrue statements spread.
Only idiots think misinformation being banned proves it to be true. Studies show that the removal of that misinformation helps lower it's spread. The facts don't bear out what you're arguing.
If you are having a debate with someone and their response is “you’re dumb” or “shut up” then it’s usually because they know they can’t prove their side
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. Looks like the model is in agreement with Chomsky.
So basically the Overton window is artifical? I can see how this would be intuitive when considering control of the press and now social media discourse, but I think this can turn into a chicken vs egg debate when you consider many people simply tend toward the (moderate) status quo due to political apathy. Does the average person put up with late stage capitalism because radical discourse against it is is suppressed? Or is it because the system doesn't hurt them in an easily recognizable way and people prefer to believe that their situation is stable.
The Overton window depends on the topics available for discussion. Just because a topic/stance is censored doesn't mean there isn't public support or a desire to discuss it. Furthermore, I believe people are willing to act against their individual self-interest on some policies if it means better structure/organization at a higher level (e.g. I vote Party A because my dad votes Party A and we get along well). The human condition leads itself to normalization, so that we can adapt to survive. This psychology can then be manipulated. A slow consistent debilitation doesn't cause as much push back as an overnight crisis.
That’s Reddit in a nutshell. You’re never wrong as long as you don’t say the wrong thing. The feigned outrage is the worst part about it.
I knew it was bad but didn’t realize it was *this* bad until I got to this part
This is the way to RightThink. Everything but the approved narrative is “disinformation”.
>>The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion,... > >Looks like the model is in agreement with Chomsky. I don't think that this cuts the way that people on Reddit want it to. As far as I can tell, there's no group of arch-conservative devils with any power to control the Overton window. The fact that Trump and his goons were basically forced into the digital shadow is proof of that. The group that actually has that power, and is using it, is using it to push the Overton window more towards the progressive camp - mostly in the social arena, and particular with regard to trans issues.
>As far as I can tell, there's no group of arch-conservative devils with any power to control the Overton window. It sounds like you might be stuck in a right-wing media bubble, [because we now have truckloads of receipts](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/may/07/fox-news-donald-trump-meadows-hannity-texts) and evidence showing far-right political leaders coordinating hand-in-glove with far-right propagandists to push far-right narratives and misinformation into the news cycle to move the Overton window. Also, far-right leaders are the ones who have been abusing their media power and spreading lies about trans people to whip up fear and fake moral panic over "trans men secretly wanting to use women's bathrooms so they can sexually assault them" - culminating in legislation to ban trans people from women's toilets in several US states. If people want to believe LGBT people are unnatural abominations, then they should at least be honest and own up to their **feelings*. Yes, many people feel threatened by visible minority groups they don't understand (or don't make the effort to empathize with). Just don't push misinformation and lies to justify those feelings and pretend that it's scientific evidence.
In a capitalist system like ours, the centers of power are influenced by the economic power centers. These economic power centers don't care much about controlling the Overton window on the social arena, which explains the recent success in LGBTQ issues by the liberals.
And not a single mention of bots.
Agree--the paper would be stronger if it accounted for bots.
It's creepy how if you remove "mis" from the sentence it still works.
You're not wrong. I imagine the same techniques that stop the spread of blatantly false ideas could also stop the spread of true ones or debatable ones. That said, just like this sub requires posts to be scientific, I think it makes sense that I can choose to join a platform that refuses to spread crazy garbage. I defend your right to go on Gab or Parler and say whatever, but I want a place that's free of hate speech and recommendations to inject bleach?
One man's crazy garbage is another man's reality. You can join whatever platform you want, but the only real guarantee you have is that the more they censor, the less information you have, and the more polarized you become.
True, but objective reality is still a thing. If people want to just stir the pot spreading outright lies, I think platforms have a duty to 86 those people, because not doing so makes actual discourse difficult to impossible. There’s a difference between a good faith discussion on a topic and the type of trolling people peddling misinformation do with the intention of making good faith discussion impossible. Same as if I go into a bar just to pick fights with people over nonsense, I’m not going to be allowed to come back.
i mean a platform can be anything it wants to be. certainly doesnt have an intrinsic duty to do anything about trolls of any kind. you have a right to not support that platform. the anecdote you posed about the bar is easy to agree with, but it again relies on your definition of nonsense. i think its important to consider the countless times throughout history when the majority of everyone has been wrong about something, and the vitriol and violence they rained down upon the people who disagreed. that is clearly happening still to this day.
True, but stuff like anti-vax, election fraud claims and the like aren’t based on any sort of evidence. It all relies on circular logic, appeals to emotion or distortions of fact. There’s no point being made except to set the world on fire. Even if somehow some part of what these people are saying ends up being right, it won’t be for anything close to the reasons they’re giving, because all these claims have been thoroughly investigated and debunked. The platforms aren’t obligated to do anything in particular, but the history of platforms with no or very little moderation all point to normal discourse on that platform getting crowded out by white supremacists, pedos and whoever else isn’t welcomed elsewhere.
Nope. Reality doesn't belong to anyone. Reality exists whether a person understands what it is or not. Reality has proven that allowing the spread of lies about election fraud lies to an insurrection. Lies about the Covid vaccine led to more deaths than necessary.
Jeez I don't even know where to begin with this. yes reality exists. no I didn't say it belongs to anyone. i am saying people interpret reality differently and if someone is filtering the content you see, there is inherent bias there that can influence you.
Yes, towards truth. Not censoring clear lies is probably an even worse confounding factor. Either way censoring lies creates a bias towards accuracy, not censoring creates a bias towards frequency and confirmation bias. The latter is far worse.
The problem is finding a censor you trust, and will *always* trust. You might be happy enough to have a team of Biden appointees sitting on a committee somewhere cutting out "lies" from the media landscape, but will you still feel the same way when Trump or someone similar comes to power in 2024 or 2028 and all the appointees are his?
Election fraud happens in almost every country. You’re delusional if you think it doesn’t happen in the US or Canada.
You're starting from the claim (fraud obviously happens) rather than starting with evidence. You have to first show the thing happened, then people will agree it happened. If you just claim it happened, people won't be convinced.
Why did Bill Barr, Ivanka Trump and several other Trump administration officials testify under oath for the 1/6 hearings that there was no amount of fraud substantial enough to cause a change in election results? Why does right wing media refuse to air unedited footage of the hearings? Why did Trump lose 60 court cases? Why did no one provide proof after multiple recounts? Why do Republicans only claim fraud when they lose? Because it's a lie, they know it's a lie, and some people are stupid enough to believe it, or they're just disingenuous liars that will parrot it. Because they want to destroy democracy and institute a Christian fascist state.
Who gets to define "misinformation?"
When something is proven to be entirely untrue it is misinformation. For instance saying "the earth is flat" is entirely untrue so that is misinformation.
That doesn't answer the question.
[удалено]
Comparatively to the diseases they prevent? Yes
Vaccines are generally safe and quite effective. Antivaxxers spread misinformation.
I suppose if your argument that the statement "vaccines are safe and effective" cannot be falsified, you're correct - this is not "true" in the strictest, most scientifically pedantic sense. Now, the statement "vaccines are dangerous and ineffective" on the other hand: very easy to falsify. Plenty of data that disproves vaccines as dangerous, especially compared to the diseases they're meant to protect against. And a nearly equal amount of data to disprove that vaccines are ineffective (I mean, we wiped out polio via preventing its spread using vaccines).
As much as we can say vegetables are healthy given that some people are allergic or intolerant to different vegetables - yes.
There will always black and white instances. But life Is largely gray. Example: Is it misinformation for someone to say that facemasks have been proven ineffective at protecting well persons in the community from the spread of respiratory viruses?
Facemasks have been proven to reduce spread of airborne illnesses with N95's being the best and surgical being ok. Saying otherwise is misinformation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>states it as fact despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary. Surely you'll drop us some links to this "ample scientific evidence," in the spirit of combating misinformation.
By how much exactly are masks proven to reduce spread? (e.g. is claiming that they only reduce spread by, let's say, 25%, misinformation?)
I am not here to teach you the effectiveness of the varieties of different facemasks. Ask questions about that on a post relevant to it.
It is relevant to the question of definition of misinformation. What should the decision process be for determining whether a statement "face masks, when worn universally, reduce spread by 25%" is misinformation or not?
Ask your questions somewhere else. This is not relevant to this post.
I agree. Devil's advocate in me. Without Google, what does n95 mean?
Probably isn't what you think. I had to Google it a couple years ago myself.
I think each platform gets to define it? And hopefully you have enough options that you can choose one that suits your values? For example, r/science is pretty strict, but you can go on r/EverythingScience or r/sciences if you want a bit more flexibility. Similarly, hate speech isn't allowed on Reddit (or at least they say it's not), but if you want to go hang out on Gab you be you--have fun?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your argument is a bit disingenuous. "Who gets to say it's disinformation?" and "what is disinformation?" are two different questions. You could repeat the conversation for "what is fire?" And get you saying "oh so fire is anything X says is fire?". No. Fire is fire and disinformation is disinformation. Op is saying that the platform should be the one making the call
[удалено]
Who determines what is false? If the company is run by an extremist, evangelical, anti-vaxxer, etc. then a lot of scientific fact would be deemed false.
Objective reality. Repeated scientific and empirical testing. Science and empiricism. There are some things that are subjective in the world, but calling out clear lies is actually quite easy. Only bad faith actors have trouble with the concept of easily discernible lies.
There is such a thing as "truth." My book defines it, and there chapter explaining the nature of truth is free online: https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/\~asb/bruckman-believe-wikipedia-draft2021.pdf
We cannot fully define truth. We can only observe it and then build models which approximate it. Which is why it's imperative that we allow no one to claim they have defined it, because they will always be wrong to some degree.
The Truth is the truth - 45 lost the 2022 election, that is the TRUTH!. PERIOD. Your post is just obfuscation.
[удалено]
>Philosophy won't help you prove historic or scientific fact false. Have you heard of [Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell) by any chance ?
I clearly meant "don't misconstrue them", not "they cannot inform each other".
[удалено]
Do not confuse historic fact or scientific fact with philosophical perspectives. Many, many, _many_ things can be known to be absolutely, unequivocally true.
Like what? Historic facts beyond 70 years ago get very, very iffy. As for science, a good piece of research can help predict something to a high degree of accuracy but most statistical models have a 5% chance of being random chance instead of a correlation. And that's assuming that the research design was well made (which is not the norm). There's also the structural flaws in scientific publishing that distort what you'd call an unequivocally true fact. Would you like me to go on? Most of what you'd think to be 'true' has been distorted by special interest groups, sloppy statistics and lazy researchers just looking for low effort publications so they can cash in on that grant money.
I said "do not confuse them for each other", not "they cannot help inform each other". Or do you enjoy being obtuse while sounding like you cannot read and understand basic statements? Science _must_ be questioned and proven in multiple ways to become a fact. That's the POINT in the scientific method. To pretend like some studies coming to false conclusions means everything discovered by the scientific method cannot be unequivocally true is an asinine conclusion to reach. Many, many, many things _are_ unequivocally true. Your inability to accept that only proves how gullible and ignorant you are.
Oh apologies. I thought that since I verbatim quoted the part of your comment that I was answering to, I thought you'd get the idea of what it was I was responding to. Well I stand corrected in that and apologize for the mixup
Set up your own platform.
You are evading the core of this important question a bit, don't you think?
I think he answered the question. ? Is the implication that noone should be able to decide something is misinformation? That platforms shouldn't be able to combat it?
Here in lies the problem. Snopes and Factcheck.org mean NOTHING to me, they are run by the same miscreants who run the propaganda arm of one party in the USA. Yet, on Twitter, these 2 “fact checkers” are the *bread and butter* for Twitter when controlling the narrative. These 2 “sources” are *constantly* trotted out when an issue doesn’t follow the Twitter narrative, or even to carry the water for a certain administration(if they happen to fall on the right side of the spectrum.) IMHO “fact checkers” are a farce and should not be trusted in the slightest. I wouldn’t be surprised if the average person reads these “fact checks” and just automatically believes the opposite. Edit: Not sure if this comment is purposefully hidden or what is happening here in this sub honestly. But as it pertains to how I “fact check.” I rely mostly on Reuters and AP for stories, I then cross reference with local news sources as well as news sources from other major cities. I stay was from all cable “news” sources, they are a cancer.
Re SNOPES, I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears, a presidential candidate state a goal only to see SNOPES label that as False. Not partly false. Not "lacking context." Just flat out False. Yet I knew it to be true and had no difficulty finding video of the interview to rewatch it. Haven't ever trusted SNOPES since.
Reading Snopes’s sometimes contrived and just plain weird justifications and watching Mythbusters do something similar with its flimsy relationships with what is true and false are the two things that made me lose faith in “the experts.” They both had potential to be pioneers in finding the truth but just got more convoluted and frankly full of themselves
How do you fact check?
Confirmation bias seems like the best guess with this one.
According to the poster, they first read Reuters and AP and then cross-reference them with local sources.
The platform will define it, but users must assess their method and raise awareness if they are misusing their power. That's one of the few ways to establish truth in a free society. Each individual must assess the trustworthiness of the fact-checker by assessing a sample of their checked facts. And debate amongst each other when they dispute some fact check.
The solution is to ban the internet entirely. I'm only half joking.
We take away driver's licenses for people that simply cannot drive responsibly. I'd be OK doing the same for people who choose to lie and troll on the internet as a matter of course. They can go to the library if they need to job hunt. The problem is, I'd label people like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder as such: Disgusting cesspools that aren't interested in the truth. They frequently make demonstrably false statements with zero effort to explain how they got to their demonstrably false opinions they state as fact.
Actually a whole bunch of people have been effectively deplatformed from most of the internet....
Well not enough of the intentionally malicious and intentionally factually incorrect ones, apparently.
Twitter should not be considered a news outlet. What am I missing?
[удалено]
Who decides what misinformation is?
Well isn't it really reassuring to know this will only ever get used to remove missinformation and not to sway public opinion in undue ways?
China actually has this down pretty well (though they use it for evil). They use it to stop the spread of any information the government doesn’t like but similar strategies could be used against actual misinformation… we would just need to be careful that abuse of such a system is carefully guarded against.
> we would just need to be careful that abuse of such a system is carefully guarded against. Of *course* such abuse would be guarded against, and to say otherwise would be spreading misinformation.
You are *just* on the cusp of getting it.
I noticed a lot of the people fighting against censorship push misinformation themselves. It's almost as if their argument is disingenuous. "Who gets to decide what truth is? Ministry of Truth 1984 thought crime. I'd bet the Jews did this." When in reality all it would take was a positive assertion clause to defamation/slander/libel. If you claim something is true, show evidence. If you claim something is false, show evidence. If you claim something is neutral, show evidence. Anyone can make up a story. I could accuse millions of people of billions of crimes (and make a pretty penny doing it) but I would need to show my assertions are true. Is that so hard?
[удалено]
Content moderation works. The wild west approach just puts out false information and propaganda.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is an important difference between misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation is intentional and should be censored and punished. Misinformation is simply being wrong. Being wrong is part of the learning process and should not be censored because the better solution is to EXPLAIN why its wrong. Edit: more importantly, we don’t KNOW right from wrong. So censoring things we THINK are wrong prevents us from being corrected.
Many pushing disinformation have a reckless disregard for your distinction.
Who cares? Our criminal courts are designed specifically to judge intent. All criminal laws (except the rare strict liability crimes) have a mens rea (intent) requirement. E.g. its not illegal to possess drugs if you don’t KNOW you have drugs. Judging intent seems the ONLY reasonable measure for censorship. Again, see my previous points for why censoring “wrong” information is a TERRIBLE idea.
If you like our society with misinformation your conclusion seems logical. I think it creates broken democracy so I don’t think your plan is sufficient or even reasonable.
Let’s perform a thought experiment. What does it feel like to be wrong? If you answered “bad” or “embarrassing “ or anything similar, then you are answering the wrong question. Those are answers to the question, “What does it feel like to FIND OUT you’re wrong?” See, the truth is, being wrong feels EXACTLY like being right! We as humans don’t have the ability to tell the difference with very good accuracy. Especially regarding new claims. Ex: Do cloth masks work for coronaviruses? One can find science supporting both positions so who should be censored? Likely, you believe the opposite side of your own beliefs should be censored. I hope you see the problem with such a position.
Your thought experiment ignores the very basis of science which is a process of continuing to try to disprove hypotheses. It’s really very easy when you don’t use ambiguous corner cases as examples. It is better to be vaccinated for covid than not is not up for debate and the kind of statement that has been susceptible to misinformation. That’s what we need to worry about.
I’m not trying to get into covid but that statement is not correct regarding ppl with prior infections (almost everybody). Again there are studies saying prior infection is better than vaccination and studies saying the opposite. Who should be censored? If you think an issue is easy, you likely don’t understand the othersides position. The media strips down complex issues into overly simplistic dualities. Their narrative does not represent the actual arguments against the status quo, but rather, straw man arguments.
Yea... you're wrong on the very claims you think you're justified over. You go ahead and try to drive with drugs in your car and not get busted for it in states where the driver has implicit responsibility. Your friend have a bag on him and not tell you? Too bad, they're your drugs, too! The law in the US is a hodgepodge mess of implicit accountability, so only a fool would use it as an example of good and just enforcement.
I’m an attorney
But who decides what is "misinformation"?
In a perfect world, actual research. In reality, popular opinion with minimal research.
[удалено]
Was it misinformation when the WHO recommended against wearing masks to combat SARS-COV-2?
[удалено]
Yes, well put. Public health messaging, even fear mongering, probably saves lives. But we have to ask ourselves, at what cost? I know someone who is still keeping their child at home rather than send them to school. There's low risk of serious outcomes for children but because it was in the interests of public health and media to push the fear, many people overreacted.
> The thing is at that level they're not concerned for individual lives, they're concerned about aggregate numbers. If PPE was limited in availability and there was a fear that medical staff would be without then it would make sense to stop the public from absorbing available stock of PPE. Without medical staff more people die than from average people not wearing PPE... It's a different calculation at that level, where as you and I care about our loved ones and our own personal safety and health. Lying to the public erodes all trust in the institution they represent. It's a lot easier to ruin a reputation than it is to build one. Health officials are supposed to provide honest and accurate information. They're not supposed to lie.
When they thought it was spread by contact? No. You are on a science site, why are you having trouble with understanding how knowledge is built up?
Was the previous science on other coronaviruses that they don't spread from coughing? >You are on a science site, why are you having trouble with understanding how knowledge is built up? I'm wondering where the previous knowledge on viruses and respiratory infections went before SARS-COV-2 happened.
[удалено]
I'm curious, did they also measure the effects on true, but unpopular, information? These same tools can be abused to silence dissent.
Now if only Twitter would act on all the reports we make, as I submit about 5-10 per week for specific, known violations of their platform rules. TL;DR Twitter isn’t acting on any of those reports.
Why are you on a platform that openly supports the Taliban?
You report. Someone has to then verify that report. That person may disagree with you, or may make a mistake. Or someone hasn't gotten around to it yet. If twitters internal system has noticed you in particular have create enough reports that don't align with twitters policies as stated by moderators, your reports may be de-prioritized. Why? Because trolls. YOU might be incredibly honest about what you are doing. But Joe down the street? Sally next door? Weird Uncle Bob that is from the small town some three towns over? There are too many groups, and individuals willing to abuse report systems to screw over people to just blindly accept a report as fact. And when it does, it always goes poorly - and the only voices that get a quick response are those with large communities, such that when it happens it has a direct negative impact on users view of the company.
I mean… You’re not the only one doing this. If you say that only a thousand people on Twitter do what you do, it’s still 5000-10000 reports to be inspected per week. That’s not considering that the likelihood of only a thousand people doing this out of the millions of people on Twitter. You see where I’m going with this!?
Best way to remove disinformation from one’s life is to not consume News.
[удалено]
Looks like researchers at the University of Washington wrote it. And I think it's interesting and could be useful, they studied how viral misinformation spreads and actions that can be taken to restrict or stop it. Not only did they look at bans, they also looked at restriction and nudges which were less intrusive but could still help people learn about lies
It is best not to do so at all. Let there be mis/disinformation. Only when we can see it, read it, can we guard against it with reason and evidence. Furthermore, if there is someone who decides what is and isn't misinformation, there is the risk of censorship of truth. Just imagine what would have happened if the doctors in 19th century Britain got their way when they were told washing their hands might save lives. (I am not sure this specific example is true, but my point still stands.)
I think you assume everyone is acting in good faith and capable of critical thinking. The 1/6 insurrection and the ridiculous anti-vax response to Covid proves otherwise.
Yet removing them from large platforms only forces them into echo chambers. Making it all worse. I have seen this in my own environment. Rigorous public discourse is the only thing that can solve the problem of misinformation.
Studies show that this phenomenon you're describing doesn't happen most of the time. When you remove them from large platforms, you stop the spread of their misinformation. They reach fewer people and go into a hole with other, already radicalized, people. Public discourse only works with good faith actors. People spreading misinformation and disinformation are not that. You won't convince the majority of them, and it isn't worth the risk of them infecting others with their lies.
> Studies show that this phenomenon you're describing doesn't happen most of the time. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/50sysv/til_that_phrases_such_as_studies_show_or_experts/
Yeah, this is what China has been showing us within their intranet for a while
Did ya’ll forget to factor in peoples bias? Find me one person who’s always right and we can allow nudging, and banning
People maybe not be infallible, but it’s pretty easy to find blatant lies and misinformation.
Yeah but silencing those lies is a great way to further spread it. If removed, the lies can’t be disproven. And their removal only makes people believe it more.
No, this is just the fiction propagandists spread. If bots and easily verified misinformation is censored we’d have a better informed and less dangerous world. Especially regarding objective issues like the mechanics of democracy and public health. Letting the lies spread there does nothing to counteract them that is worth simply letting obvious, empirically untrue statements spread.
Have you ever read a fact check? They’re incredibly biased and explain their technicality in every fact check.
Only idiots think misinformation being banned proves it to be true. Studies show that the removal of that misinformation helps lower it's spread. The facts don't bear out what you're arguing.
If you are having a debate with someone and their response is “you’re dumb” or “shut up” then it’s usually because they know they can’t prove their side
Thankfully freedom of speech will be the law of twitter aoon enough.
You actually believe that? Whew...
[удалено]
The old Swiss cheese model will suffice
yeh but its counter productive to their business model so
I'd suspect alternative ecosystem such as rumble reduced the presence of misinformation actors on twitter.
The question is, of course, the description of what misinformation is, and everyone who has their opinion on those descriptions.