It seems that the 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.
The last sentence in the quote was my question. "question "do you disagree?" You responded. "I do not".
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.
That’s misinformation. You last sentence in the post to which I disagreed was “ So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?” — NOS4A2
↪Relativist
My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?
I do not. — 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.
Nope. I believe it didn’t cause him to. — NOS4A2
Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation.And as John Milton argued, the censors deny themselves (and others) the opportunity to see falsity collide with truth. By giving the authorities the right to determine truth and historical fact, they push for the stupidity of mankind. — NOS4A2
One wonders how it is that the authorities in this instance are immune to misinformation and false beliefs. Presumably some official will peruse misinformation just as anyone else, and therefor are at the very same risk of forming false beliefs as the rest of us, so it makes little sense to give some and not everyone the power to judge the veracity of information on their own accord. And given that falsity and false beliefs have been with us since the beginning, one wonders of its increasing criminalization as of late. Perhaps worse, our betters have never been that adept at disseminating the truth, historically producing its opposite on an industrial scale. — NOS4A2
I do have a problem with that. The consequences of speech, for instance, is air and sound coming out of the mouth. To be fair, I'm willing to subject myself to a test if you wish to promote your harm theory. Let's see which injuries you can inflict on me with your speech. — NOS4A2
It was bad that Edgar shot up the Pizzeria.We agree on the necessary condition. We disagree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring... — NOS4A2
If I read the phrase “the earth is flat” one-hundred times, and after I’m done tell you the earth is in fact not flat, will that suffice as a demonstration? — NOS4A2
It seems to me that the ability to question authority would limit news organizations from propagating lies because they would be shown time and again to be reporting falsehoods and they would eventually go out of business.So, in the case of fascists posing a real threat to the government, we should allow news outlets and public figures to propagate dangerous, subversive lies - and they would be dangerous - because you think people ought to question everything they hear? Do you think you imploring us on a philosophy forum to not take things at face value could actually have an effect on the people predisposed via conditioning to acting violently on the lies they hear? Do you think they would apply even the miniscule amount of rigor you mustered up to formulate your vapid responses to engaging with the truth of why they should do what they are told to do by their dear leader?
Do you think many Nazis asked for citations when Hitler claimed Jews were parasites on the German people in the 1939 Reichstag Speech? Did they critically examine the reasoning for his prediction that another world war would see the elimination of the Jewish race in Europe? — ToothyMaw
The right to question authority is a type of free speech.I haven't suggested any actions (yet). I was just pointing out that more free speech doesn't address the problem...and also that the problem is very real. — Relativist
Of course, but there has been an unhealthy trend toward treating expert opinion as no more credible than the opinion of a blogger on the internet- especially among Republicans. See: https://www.axios.com/2023/05/28/misinformation-scienceThe right to question authority is a type of free speech — Harry Hindu
Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation. — Relativist
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — U.S. Constitution
Censoring politicians, not everyone else. Politicians should just run on their records.Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation.
— Relativist — Paine
The Axios article linked to a Pew survey that showed Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mistrust scientists.Axios is a left-leaning source of information. It seems to me that both sides engage in misinformation equally and reject science when it is politically expedient. .. — Harry Hindu
I've never seen anyone denying the biological facts regarding sex. Are you perhaps referring to the trend to treat gender as a social role that can sometimes be inconsistent with biological sex?...Many Democrats have rejected biological facts regarding sex
Yes, that's unfortunate and it's exacerbated by the political parties. GOP leaders have to cater to their base by appealing to their anti-science trends and the embrace of conspiracy theories. In the process, they draw in more of the lunatic fringe - to which they will them endeavor to continue to court. The only remotely similar thing I see the Dems doing is to tiptoe around policies and attitudes toward transgenders.What really sucks is the level of politicization that has infiltrated society today. — Harry Hindu
Everyone gets one term? I'd support that, but it won't happen - it would take a constitutional amendment. I'd like to see critical thinking skills taught in schools- but I anticipate Christian groups would oppose it.Here's an idea: how about we take campaigning for a position of power out of the equation? Impose term limits on Congress. — Harry Hindu
Rather, as has been argued a few times, some talk is believed by some. It's common, daily.
People here don't seem to realize that censorship and free speech is a double-edge sword. — Harry Hindu
So your answer is just give the elitists more power to control the people? — Harry Hindu
Of course, but there has been an unhealthy trend toward treating expert opinion as no more credible than the opinion of a blogger on the internet- especially among Republicans. — Relativist
Such deepfakes are unequivocally a lie, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech. Identifying them for what they are benefits those of us who seek facts. So who's harmed by such a requirement? In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?Why not just leave everyone alone instead of harming them and their work? It would be better for all of us. — NOS4A2
So you agree it's a reasonable infringement on free speech, because it can cause damage.The damage of fraudulent speech, as demonstrated through Common Law, is measured by its demonstrated result. The level of criminality that may be involved concerns the question of malicious intent — Paine
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.