The principium individuationis is the principle of individuation Schopenhauer used to describe space and time. So describing the location of the object at any given point in time and space should suffice to differentiate or individuate the object from the conceptual nets we tend to apply to a multitude. Objects can easily share names and descriptions but it is difficult to share a location.

From there I wager we can sweep away the notion of the universal essence, or other imagined connections, which presuppose a sort of ectoplasm between human beings. We can stop tying human beings together with false concepts and words to achieve an artificial basis of value, and discover value in the unique and original properties of each human being.

My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want.

Then why take away the choice whether to live or die from the child?

I’m sure you wouldn’t consider your fantasies to be misinformation or have any worry about damaging humanity with it. But in fact the only damage it has done is to you. It’s ok; you’ll survive.

You agreed the disinformation was a necessary condition to the bad act. That logically implies that in the absence of the disinformation, the act would not have occurred. In your defense of your position, you're coflating "necessary and sufficient" with "necessary". I haven't suggested that the disinformation alone caused the bad act, but you keep treating it that way- so you aren't confronting the issue I brought up.

Do you believe that since something is a necessary condition it therefor contributed to the act?

I can only find you falsely asserting it's a violation of free speech. This doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want, nor does it prevent them creating fake videos- so no rights are being infringed. (There's no right to commit fraud).

You’re just going to have to look harder before falsely asserting I didn’t answer it. And yes, vandalizing someone’s work violates their free speech.

That's utter nonsense. They depict a person saying/doing things they did not do - and they appear real. It's fraud. It's fine to parody, and watermaking wouldn't prevent that.

Hokum. Sassy Justice is satire, not a fraud.

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

So why not get better at discerning what is true than giving some people the power to be the final word on truth?

Because I think there is something more useful to consider than the thread's title question, "Why should we worry about misinformation?"

Regardless of any matter of "should" there is the simple matter that some people do care about the damage to humanity that results from the propagation of disinformation and misinformation, and some people don't. To justify that all people should care, it would seem important that all people could care. So the topic of whether some people can't care is relevant, and that brings up psychopathy and whether you are capable of caring about the damage to humanity resulting from misinformation.

My own worry is the damage to humanity resulting from censorship. Are you capable of caring about that?

Also "immediate cause" or "proximate cause".
My voice directly stimulates cochlea, or a electronic sensor.

By your "metaphysics", a twitch of an index finger never killed anyone, nor usually a gun, but only bullets. So nothing to fear from someone with a gun.

That’s true. That’s what bullets are made for, why they are shaped the way they are, etc.

It doesn’t follow that you shouldn’t fear someone shooting bullets at you, however.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Misinformation cannot control a motor cortext. It did not plan the attack or load the weapon. Information cannot act. It did not contribute to the act because it is incapable of contributing.

who's harmed by such a requirement?

I did answer this question.

In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

For one, deep fakes are not "unequivocal lies", as is demonstrated by the show Sassy Justice. We'd be better off without you telling us what is true or false, what is allowed and what isn't, and for us to figure out on our own accord what is true or false without a third party such as yourself.

But you quibble here?

Why is your metaphysics "quibbling" in one context, but in the more important context of misinformation it is somehow relevant?

If the metaphysics were sound maybe that would be one thing. But it is not. You are confusing "cause" with "direct cause". My voice cannot directly turn off the lights. But it can still turn off the lights with Alexa.

Ahh, "directly". Just great. So what can your voice directly do then?

It was a question which demonstrated your lack of empathy towards abused women. So it seems appropriate to consider the extent to which your perspective is a result of Psychopathy:

No, it was the question about why you're doing this. You haven't stopped writing about me yet, telling someone you have never met that they lack empathy and are psychopathic. I'm just curious as to why.

Good man.

You addressed nothing I said. You seem to be unable to think beyond "censorship bad".

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith.

But no. Care to try again?

It was just a question. Touchy subject, I’m sure.

So the speech, which caused the electrical signal that the software passed and interpreted, did not cause the lights to turn off? The software did? Or the electrical energy did?

If you are at someone's home, and say "Alexa, lights off" or whatever, and the host asks you why you turned off the lights, you answer "I didn't turn them off. The electrical energy did!"

Can you see why this is either a joke or sophomoric nonsense?

No, I don’t quibble much in everyday conversation. I would say, “yes, I turned the lights off”.

But then again everyday conversation doesn’t center much around metaphysics. Only if someone in this domain of discourse tells me my speech turned the lights off will I tell them they believe in sorcery. Your voice hasn’t moved a single switch in your whole life, but here you are acting like it does.

This is attempted gaslighting.

We can add to that the fact that you see yourself as being in a community of one and show no signs of having empathy for others.

Are you ready to take your best guess yet?

Attempted gaslighting...it is coming more and more evident that you're feeling like an abused girlfriend. Am I getting close?

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?

Fear and calls for censorship have always accompanied new advances in communication. The catholic church was against the printing press, for example. But while the printing press was used for nefarious purposes such as the spreading of false information, sowing confusion, and insulting established authority, it was also key to the enlightenment, progress, and liberation. I'd hate to see a church censor's watermark on a copy of Les Misérables, for instance.

The artist, those of us who look at it, and posterity are harmed by your actions, which amount to vandalism. It's not up to you to deface someone's work. Imagine the deepfake show "Sassy Justice", from the creators of Southpark, with your ugly watermark on it.

Why not just leave everyone alone instead of harming them and their work? It would be better for all of us.

Rather, as has been argued a few times, some talk is believed by some. It's common, daily.

Despite the passive voice, this is what I’ve been saying all along. Some people believe some talk. This statement is completely accurate and I agree because it describes an act committed by the guilty party.

Misinformation does not have the power and abilities to harm society. But the believers in it do. So we worry about the believers in misinformation.

Actually all air vibrations, including non-speech, are transduced into electrical energy in modern smart-home systems. In the case of speech recognition It is the software that filters out the speech from the non-speech sounds. So the speech has no more causal power than any other sound.

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?

I don’t know how I’m being evasive; I’m telling you everything I believe.

We agree on the necessary condition. We disagree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring, and that it would be good to minimize it. Then for some reason you wanted me to explain why I was denying disinformation was a necessary condition for these acts to occur, right after I said I do not disagree with you. It's just confusing, is all.

That to me is a more interesting and balanced outlook, so thanks for writing it.

I like your idea that truth has trouble surviving in the modern media environment. No doubt that's true; but I think it's true of all media environments. The adage that "Falsehood flies and the Truth comes limping after it" is quite old.

One thing that is increasingly modern is the exponential growth in the sheer amount of information, true or false. None of us are equipped to deal with all of it, assess it this way or that at all times, because we couldn't read all of it in the first place. It isn't long before we start to receive it through less-than-reputable sources like Uncle John and Nancy Sinatra. I'm more on the hopeful side and believe we'll adapt, but it would be a shame if some would attempt to deny us this opportunity.

The last sentence in the quote was my question. "question "do you disagree?" You responded. "I do not".

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?”

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.

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.

That’s right. 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.

Well, it should have been clear because I linked to the post I was replying to, as I always do.

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.

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.

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.

I do not agree, and am not open to considering ways to limit the spread.

What is the point of your comments, really?

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

You must have a great understanding and empathy for others.

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.

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.

That is a more interesting theory in my opinion.

All I know is, had they put that book to the flame for the fear that it caused people to kill others we wouldn’t have a chance to read it today. And the fact that it doesn’t cause people who read it today to kill others proves to me that something else caused them to kill others. Besides, I doubt many of them even knew how to read.

I don’t expect you to argue the point, because you have none. I’ve never said any person is his own universe, have never ignored human interaction, nor have I given any indication of my empathy.

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.

No. 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.

Would you commit the crime if you read it?

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.

Would The Malleus Maleficarium cause you to kill someone? I doubt it.

As I said: because people are harmed as a result. This is true EVEN IF there is nothing we can do about it.

Sure, but harmed as a result of someone’s choices, not as a result of the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I’m just saying the information never caused the harms you mentioned. The choices of those involved did. So why must I worry about the information?

Then how do we stop them, NOS?

The first step would be to stop acting like them, then win the argument.

Chomsky makes this case often:





False information cannot cause people to believe false information or act on false information. If you’d like to criminalize the cause of the harms you’d need to criminalize the act, for instance taking alternative medicine or refusing vaccines.

My advice if you really want to see what group dynamics is like, is lead a group in some way. Organize a trip with a few close friends, then organize a trip with 30. Its night and day. "Rules" are necessary. And that requires some type of enforcement mechanism or governance. Done right, it creates respect and greater freedom within the group. Done wrong its a power trip and abuse. But not done at all? Its unorganized chaos where little gets done.

I appreciate the story and advice. But is it any strange wonder that it involves children? A paternal outlook is a prerequisite to authority and undergirds the notion that other adults need to be governed as if they were kids.

The problem with collective action is well-enough known. There are too many conflicting interests among the individuals involved. But to insert a class of masters and institute coercive mechanisms in order to make it work is simply to put one or more persons interests over the others, and to exploit the rest in order to achieve those interests, which to me is immoral. Far better is it to find others with a common interest and coordinate and cooperate voluntarily.

A carefully crafted bill that penalizes peddling knowingly false information for profit would curtail some of the outright falsehoods that have taken off in the social media age. But I also agree with you 100% that it must be carefully crafted. While it would be simpler to dismiss the issue for fear that a lack of nuance would cause more harm, the law can handle nuance well if the right people are behind it.

That’s the problem. Who would you choose to decide what is true and false, and punish those who deviate from it?

I like it. But no scientific experiments needed; she’ll be sure to tell you all about it. But I am a little disappointed there is no accompanying Baden cartoon.

Interestingly, for Aristotle democracy is inherently unstable, especially in the direction of populism. So is a democracy that is safeguarded from "threats to democracy" still a democracy? Is democracy a threat to democracy?

The irony here is that calls for censorship meant to safeguard democracy from threats to democracy are themselves a threat to democracy, and this seems fairly uncontroversial. At the end of the day a kind of theocracy with science or some other truth-approach at the helm is not democracy.

It appears there are two-brands of "democracy" in conflict, the one that favors the power of the people, the other that favors the institutions that have arisen in representative democracies, for instance elections and parliaments and the credibility of those in power. It's an interesting conflict.

That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being disinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Of course the fascists would, so it makes no sense to afford them the power to do so. One of the best ways to avoid fascism is to not do what the fascists do, which in your idea is to suppress portions of the media to prevent such a takeover.

Their suppression is a gift to them. Note the Weimar fallacy, that had the Nazis been censored they wouldn’t have risen to power. The Nazis were routinely censored. Goebbels, Fritsch, and Julius Striecher were imprisoned for hate speech. Their publications were shut down (one hundred of them in Poland alone). Hitler himself was banned from speaking. Censorship did not help in the one instance where it should have. When Hitler debated Otto Wells regarding the Enabling Act he reminded Wells of how much he was censored, and this justified for him the passing of that law. They used these pre-existing laws to further suppress the opposition.

I wish this were the case, but its often not true. Especially when someone is in a powerful position and the law does not punish them for their transgressions. If it were so easy to punish such things, why would there be a call for the law? There is a call for the law because society is currently inadequate at addressing these issues alone. We don't touch things like comedy, parody, or opinions, because its clear these things are not meant to be authorities on information. But when someone pretends to be an authority on information, when they clearly know what they are peddling is false, we're seeing in real time that there is a minority majority of society that cannot handle it.

Well, we don’t have any say in the matter whether things like comedy, parody, and opinions are touched because we are not the authorities on such matters. So I think it’s a mistake to pretend that “we” in the grand sense, or society as a whole, have some sort of say.

I think the problem you often run into on these forums with your worldview NOS4A2 is your ideals are viewed through the lens of a very small community. Rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. This is not a corruption, it is a necessary thing that must happen to assist with new community problems. It is actually natural for governments to form as societies grow. Show me a society of a several thousand people in a small living space without a government. It doesn't exist.

Your other problem is that you see that government can be corrupt, therefore it must be corrupt. Or that its corruption is beyond a minimal sense. Government is a tool, and like any social tool, if wielded right, it helps society. How do you think we're able to speak our minds without getting shot by our neighbors? A free society requires the management of resources and broad human conflicts.

I appreciate the critique. Thank you.

But in my defence the very small community I view it through is me. I only have one pair of eyes. The fact that you or anyone else are afflicted with the same limitation, and cannot view the world nor speak about it through anyone’s lens but your own, puts the very idea of a community lens into immediate doubt. I just don’t know enough people of any given community to see or speak for them, and I’m sure that is the case for most.

It’s just not true that rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. They are imposed by very few individuals on the much wider society, and one can compare the amount of legislators at any given time to the amount of the rest of society in order to confirm this.

It is the history of states that leads me to believe governments are naturally corrupt. It’s an anti-social institution, an exploitative monopoly by its very nature and organization. As a rebuttal, I have a problem with the belief that as soon as a species of moral exemplars gain power, and use the government to help society and not themselves, it will no longer be. History attests to the opposite, and I would implore you to compare it against what I would call a dangerous hope.

Which is why you build a government with safe guards and anti-corruption measures. Free and frequent elections. Rights, etc. The problem is that the peddling of false facts is corruption of the free market of ideas. It has long been ruled that yelling "Fire!" falsely in a theater to cause a stampede for your own amusement is not defendable. Why then should people peddling false information for their own gain in other areas suddenly be off limits? Corruption does not just apply to government. It applies to every single person.

I’d love to get together with you and build safeguards and anti-corruption measures, but like the vast majority of human beings we do not have the power to do so. And it has long been overruled that falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded is indefensible, and was never a binding dictum in any law or otherwise. It’s just a popular analogy.