Are you suggesting that Edgar Welch would have shot up Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria even if he had never read that Democrats were sex trafficking children? That's ludicrous.
Misinformation is just false information. Under its heading falls satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, miscalculation, and so on. — NOS4A2
Simply because you don’t share your boss’ motor-cortex. You are responsible for what you do while your boss is responsible for what he does. It’s simple physics and biology. — NOS4A2
Simply because you don’t share your boss’ motor-cortex. You are responsible for what you do while your boss is responsible for what he does. It’s simple physics and biology. — NOS4A2
Would The Malleus Maleficarium cause you to kill someone? I doubt it. — NOS4A2
It's much more a condition of mass belief, or socially pressured acts. If everyone was in danger of being targeted as a witch it is possible I'd be much more likely to participate in finding witches as a survival mechanism.
My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?Just note that many people read it and did nothing of the sort. So you have one instance of someone reading it and then later committing the crime. Compare that to the many others who did read it and then did nothing.
If your theory is that those words cause people to commit harmful acts, you’ll likely need a greater sample of evidence to support it. — NOS4A2
There is no obvious solution. The chief danger of misinformation laws is that these same laws can be used to suppress the truth while effectively promoting disinformation. This is a common pattern in repressive societies — hypericin
I think you are mostly right, but usually when such laws are created in repressive societies, it isn't to fight the kind of edge case I describe above, but rather to repress for repression's sake or to enable authoritarian rule. — ToothyMaw
Thus, I think that the intent behind the implementation of such laws is probably a somewhat decent indicator of whether or not they will be easily abused; — ToothyMaw
I think you are mostly right, but usually when such laws are created in repressive societies, it isn't to fight the kind of edge case I describe above, but rather to repress for repression's sake or to enable authoritarian rule.
— ToothyMaw
You don't repress for repressions sake. The above is not an edge case, it is the main case. They might brand the governments collusion with the neo Nazis as misinformation, or criticism of the neo Nazis themselves. Whilst their political opponents receive no such protection from the misinformation laws, the government itself would probably be an organ for spreading Disinformation about them. — hypericin
Intent matters only because a government with bad intent will write the law such that it can be exploited by them. While a more benevolent government would take more care to add safeguards. — hypericin
I think that the intent behind the implementation of such laws is probably a somewhat decent indicator of whether or not they will be easily abused; the rubric in a repressive society for what constitutes disinformation would likely be broader or shift more easily to suit the powers that be as a result of policy hinging largely on the will of the repressors. In a freer, more democratic society these laws would probably just arise naturally from elected representatives legislating it to prevent certain virulent strains of disinformation. — ToothyMaw
My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?
Yeah, that was kind of my point.
I do not agree, and am not open to considering ways to limit the spread. — NOS4A2
My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree? — Relativist
Did you misunderstand the first question?I do not. — NOS4A2
So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it.
No, that wasn't at all clear. I asked you a specific yes/no question - that you answered. Now you're blaming me for your answering it wrong.You know as well as I do that I was disagreeing with this claim:
So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it. — NOS4A2
I first need to clarify the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation entails falsehoods being promulgated. Misinformation is broader, and includes people being misinformed for a variety of reasons.You are trying to maximize rather than minimize misinformation. And still nothing bad has become of it. All of it reflects on your own behavior instead of threatening me and my safety.
Why didn't free speech prevent a man from shooting his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement?It seems pretty simple to me that the obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it. — Harry Hindu
It seems that obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it.
Ideas should be exposed to criticism by default, not taken at face value by default. Question everything. It is those that don't question what they read and hear that end up causing more harm than those that do. — Harry Hindu
It's a combination of free speech and questioning authority. It seems to me that a man that shoots his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement didn't question the source of the information he received.
Whatever the man read probably just reinforced some idea he already had and a reason to engage in the violent tendencies he already had brewing within him.
Before I would take such drastic action, I would want to verify the source and legitimacy of the claims being made. How about you? — Harry Hindu
The last sentence in the quote was my question: "do you disagree?" You responded. "I do not".Well, it should have been clear because I linked to the post I was replying to, as I always do. — NOS4A2
So you believe Edgar would have driven to the Pizza Parlor and shot it up even if he'd never heard the falsehood. That's irrational.I agree that it was a necessary condition to the event. So is air, water, guns, and pizza. I disagree that it contributed to the event you mentioned and therefor ought to be minimized. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.