Social Media Bans of Scientific Misinformation Aren't Helpful, Researchers Say (gizmodo.com) 285
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: The Royal Society is the UK's national academy of sciences. On Wednesday, it published a report on what it calls the "online information environment," challenging some key assumptions behind the movement to de-platform conspiracy theorists spreading hoax info on topics like climate change, 5G, and the coronavirus. Based on literature reviews, workshops and roundtables with academic experts and fact-checking groups, and two surveys in the UK, the Royal Society reached several conclusions. The first is that while online misinformation is rampant, its influence may be exaggerated, at least as far as the UK goes: "the vast majority of respondents believe the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, that human activity is responsible for climate change, and that 5G technology is not harmful." The second is that the impact of so-called echo chambers may be similarly exaggerated and there's little evidence to support the "filter bubble" hypothesis (basically, algorithm-fueled extremist rabbit holes). The researchers also highlighted that many debates about what constitutes misinformation are rooted in disputes within the scientific community and that the anti-vax movement is far broader than any one set of beliefs or motivations.
One of the main takeaways: The government and social media companies should not rely on "constant removal" of misleading content [because it is] not a "solution to online scientific misinformation." It also warns that if conspiracy theorists are driven out of places like Facebook, they could retreat into parts of the web where they are unreachable. Importantly, the report makes a distinction between removing scientific misinformation and other content like hate speech or illegal media, where removals may be more effective: "... Whilst this approach may be effective and essential for illegal content (eg hate speech, terrorist content, child sexual abuse material) there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach for scientific misinformation, and approaches to addressing the amplification of misinformation may be more effective. In addition, demonstrating a causal link between online misinformation and offline harm is difficult to achieve, and there is a risk that content removal may cause more harm than good by driving misinformation content (and people who may act upon it) towards harder-to-address corners of the internet."
Instead of removal, the Royal Society researchers advocate developing what they call "collective resilience." Pushing back on scientific disinformation may be more effective via other tactics, such as demonetization, systems to prevent amplification of such content, and fact-checking labels. The report encourages the UK government to continue fighting back against scientific misinformation but to emphasize society-wide harms that may arise from issues like climate change rather than the potential risk to individuals for taking the bait. Other strategies the Royal Society suggests are continuing the development of independent, well-financed fact-checking organizations; fighting misinformation "beyond high-risk, high-reach social media platforms"; and promoting transparency and collaboration between platforms and scientists. Finally, the report mentions that regulating recommendation algorithms may be effective.
One of the main takeaways: The government and social media companies should not rely on "constant removal" of misleading content [because it is] not a "solution to online scientific misinformation." It also warns that if conspiracy theorists are driven out of places like Facebook, they could retreat into parts of the web where they are unreachable. Importantly, the report makes a distinction between removing scientific misinformation and other content like hate speech or illegal media, where removals may be more effective: "... Whilst this approach may be effective and essential for illegal content (eg hate speech, terrorist content, child sexual abuse material) there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach for scientific misinformation, and approaches to addressing the amplification of misinformation may be more effective. In addition, demonstrating a causal link between online misinformation and offline harm is difficult to achieve, and there is a risk that content removal may cause more harm than good by driving misinformation content (and people who may act upon it) towards harder-to-address corners of the internet."
Instead of removal, the Royal Society researchers advocate developing what they call "collective resilience." Pushing back on scientific disinformation may be more effective via other tactics, such as demonetization, systems to prevent amplification of such content, and fact-checking labels. The report encourages the UK government to continue fighting back against scientific misinformation but to emphasize society-wide harms that may arise from issues like climate change rather than the potential risk to individuals for taking the bait. Other strategies the Royal Society suggests are continuing the development of independent, well-financed fact-checking organizations; fighting misinformation "beyond high-risk, high-reach social media platforms"; and promoting transparency and collaboration between platforms and scientists. Finally, the report mentions that regulating recommendation algorithms may be effective.
Unfortunately true (Score:3)
Free speech is the best policy (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought some dudes figured that out back in 1776.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but some of them owned slaves.
Re:Free speech is the best policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free speech is the best policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free speech is the best policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what happened though. One guy said no more slaves, the South said no thanks,
"the south" said no such thing. After suppressing a large number of voices in the south (slaves), because there's nothing quite so bad as free speech, then the voices allowed to speak said "no".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in 1776 it was pretty obvious that the slave trade was morally wrong. In fact a lot of what we think of as race today was invented around that time to justify the slave trade by using junk science to "prove" that non-whites were simply inferior and in need of white masters.
It wasn't just slavery either. When they wrote "all men are created equal", they meant that literally - women were no afforded the same rights.
What I'm saying is that while they did come up with some good ideas, they were far from pe
Re: (Score:3)
Um, it sure as heck was obvious in 1776 that slavery was a bad thing to at least half the country. Uncomfortable compromises were put together in order to put the nation together. It took an unpleasant time for this to come to a head over objections from the South. But, lest we forget, generally the North was quite anti-slavery.
{^_^}
Re: (Score:2)
OK, and some of them used to take baths. Is taking a bath a bad idea? God knows you probably do things that a more enlightened society would consider you evil for. Do you have a gas car? Oh, so you don't care about polluting the atmosphere. Do you eat meat? You know farm animals suffer. That might be considered sick and disgusting in the future. Should all your ideas be blindly considered bad?
Re: (Score:3)
lol, ad hominem .. the closing argument of the beaten.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech has always been just for the right sorts of people. It expands over time so that the wrong sorts of people become smaller and smaller. And of course those dudes immediately ignored the same rules that they themselves wrote, passing laws hindering the free press during the very first congress. The US has always been a state full of crazies and hypocrites, it's not just something new that happened recently.
Re:Free speech is the best policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Spreading lies that can hurt others goes outside the free speech paradigm.
If you just hurt yourself it's your problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem becomes apparent when you realize that non-free speech requires someone or a group to decide what is "correct" or "good" speech. Couple that with all the flaws human beings have -- judgment error, selfishness, hubris .. and it's undoubtedly a recipe for disaster.
Obviously, I PREFER a society wherein only true facts are presented objectively and without anyone cherry-picking to form a narrative. However that is a mirage, simply NOT achievable. Chasing that so-called ideal is a doomed path.
Science
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spreading lies that can hurt others goes outside the free speech paradigm.
Abso-fucking-lutely not. Free speech is free speech. Full stop.
Otherwise "free speech" becomes the purvey of those most easily offended...or rather those most easily manipulated into becoming the most easily offended. Speech should be combated with speech, not censorship. Censorship is the tool of the the weakminded, or those who can't engage with other's speech. In either case, those who would advocate for censorship should not be considered serious participants in any discussion.
Re:Free speech is the best policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowhere in the world has absolute free speech. There are always things like state secrets that it is illegal to divulge, or true threats that you can get prosecuted for.
So if I run a multi-million dollar campaign (Score:3)
My point is we're just arguing over where to draw the line, not whether the line should be drawn.
As for those dudes in 1776 they didn't say anything about what private companies and individuals did with their platforms. They only addressed what the government can do with regards to controlling speech. You brought them up to try and make it seem like the correct thing to do is to force Twitter and Facebook to platform people. Everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I am glad to see a communist finally supporting private property rights. Though I am sure next week you'll be calling for the government to seize control of twitter for the "greater good." Anyway, conspiring to harm someone is illegal already. There is a difference between speech intended to perform an illegal action versus speech that states a viewpoint. Stating "I believe those vaccines have 5G chips in them" is not performing an action. I support Twitter's rights to kick the anti-vaxxers off the pla
No winning hand (Score:2)
On the other hand, it doesn't actually help any to remove it. While social media companies banning and/or removing it is absolutely NOT censorship it doesn't actually help the matter. People who are susceptible to buying into this crap will find it somewhere and latch on to it. It's like trying to keep people from joining cults by not discussing cults; the effor
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. These people are not the smartest bunch. If they can't get this information spoon fed on their easy to access integrated newsfeed then they're not going to be installing obscure apps or encrypted networks or whatever to evade this "censorship". Sure, maybe a few do, but the overwhelming majority won't. Added bonus, the few that do are probably the hard core saving you from having to weed through the sheeple to find the real culprits -- the ones that likely have something to gain from spreading
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a place to speak your mind, it only says the government will not prosecute you for doing so. Nobody is owed a forum, nor is anyone owed an audience. Private companies are free to restrict hosted content any way they see fit. Conversely customers are free to choose other venues if they feel there to be ones that don't host the voices they want to hear.
Wrong angle (Score:3)
The problem is social media itself. As long as tracking and personalised pushing of subjects are the way the tools work then misinformation will be dominant. All attempts to combat will fail. And truth will be the biggest casualty. Which of course implies an effective war was started the moment online advertising started down this black hole.
Ad driven social media, at least in its current form, is fundamentally flawed.
They're not banning the right people (Score:5, Insightful)
Collective resilience isn't going to work. There's a massive anti-science push that was necessary to slow down the development of renewable energy so that fossil fuels could remain as profitable as they are. This is bled over into all other forms of Life and science. Fundamentally undermining The public's faith and science was going to have consequences and at this point the best we can do is damage control.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"There's a massive anti-science push that was necessary to slow down the development of renewable energy so that fossil fuels could remain as profitable as they are.
Absolutely correct!" It is perpetuated by anti nuclear "activist" and "experts". Greenpeace and the like serve as the militant arm of the fossil fuel industry. And if they don't get paid for it then they are even bigger idiots then I thought they are. We lost the 20th century already and we'll lose this one too.
Regarding Covid, the censors cance
Re: (Score:3)
We don't know the lab is not the origin, though we do believe it's a naturally occurring virus we don't know where it occurred. While the cluster of early cases developed around the wet market, that's as sure as we are of anything which is frankly not that sure.
Yours is the sort of disinformation that should be expunged.
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate FUD and information warfare campaigns by, say, the fossil fuel industry and smoking industry, should have resulted in lengthy prison sentences for all involved and the shutting down of those companies.
BNFL has lied in court cases over the origin in nuclear waste at Seascale, and deliberately falsified documents regarding cost per unit of energy for renewables versus nuclear. TEPCO's lies and falsifications resulted in part of Japan being evacuated after their reactors failed catastrophically. I'm
FAKE NEWS!!!!! (Score:3)
Social media bans of scientific misinformation ARE helpful, researchers say.
Ban me!11!!
A lot of people believed the lies ... (Score:2)
... about Brexit.
There was lots of misinformation about Brexit that convinced a lot of people to vote against their own interest.
[downmods incoming in 3 ... 2 ... 1]
Re: (Score:2)
What I was about to say as well...isn't this the same place that voted for Brexit? Are they saying that the flagrant misinformation about Brexit didn't have an impact?
Are they having a laugh?
Re: (Score:2)
When media and politicians misrepresent the facts to get a desired result, and you then let people vote based on that, then don't be surprised you get that result.
Aside from Brexit perhaps not being the smartest move, what is far more worrying is that the media and politicians in the UK are apparently sufficiently in someone's pocket to get the results they want despite the facts being against them.
No root source of trust (Score:2)
Trying to go with the "preponderance of scientific information" doesn't work because you STILL have to decide which "scientists" get to be counted.
I'm NOT
As they say... (Score:2)
You can't fix stupid. And you can't fix stupid people, but what you can fix is people getting stupid information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but you can, plenty of examples on this planet alone.
Misinformation (Score:3)
A lot of what is called "misinformation" especially in scientific circles are actually unproven theories, where there simply isn't enough evidence available to prove one way or another.
Censoring information is never good, and neither is blindly believing information from *any* source. What should be encouraged is critical thought and examining of the available evidence within context.
A lot of information is technically true, but misleading when taken out of context too so it's extremely important to consider the wider facts.
Do not ban Twitter users for same reason (Score:2)
It also warns that if conspiracy theorists are driven out of places like Facebook, they could retreat into parts of the web where they are unreachable.
This is exactly why banning just about anyone on Twitter or other social media platforms is a good idea.
You want them to keep broadcasting crazy nonsense out in the open where anyone can report on them to real authorities if it appears their mindset is turning dangerous to others.
If someone has some awful beliefs, I'd rather that be out in the open so I coul
The crazies are needed to show the sane in relief (Score:4, Informative)
The most important reason not to censor scientific information is that doing so invalidates its status as a reliable means of objectively discriminating knowledge.
Today, if 99% of scientists conclude A, and 1% conclude B, that is nearly equivalent to saying A is true based on a weighing of attainable experimental data.
Now suppose that, for the last hundred years, any discussion of B has been forbidden, papers which publish B have been culled, people who suggest B have been shunned, institutions which allow B as a possible belief have been demonetized. Knowing that, do you still take the fact that 99% of scientists prefer A to B to indicate A's scientific validity (to the height of possible certainty)?
Of course not. You now have no way of knowing whether A has won out in the community because of a preponderance of experimental confirmation, or because the community is structured to only produce A from their data.
If we allow censorship to become the norm, then in a few decades, disentangling that distortion will become impossible.
Re:The crazies are needed to show the sane in reli (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no slippery slope. Science flourished when censorship was at its worst. Stop this ridiculous fear mongering.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not about censoring scientific information or discussions. This is about willful disinformation and information warfare for the intended purpose of harming others.
You shouldn't ban people using pressure cookers, but we still treat people who turn pressure cookers into bombs as terrorists. We understand the difference in intent and use when there's blood and guts on the road, so we can understand the difference in intent and use between theorising/speculating and information warfare intended on causi
Royals (Score:2)
The Royals also have other societies , such as the RSPCA. The Royals however engage in heinous cruelty to animals. They NEED misinformation to keep the plebs confused and uniinformed, keeping them at bay and promoting uncertainty about the #RoyalNonce Prince Andrew.
#NoTrust #PersonalAgenda
Wrong, conspiracy theorists are ... (Score:2)
.... already unreachable. The only reason they keep to exist on mainstream social media is because they hope to gain influence on 'normal' people. So they should be actively banned from the internet as such because they are a cancer in humanity.
Doesn't work (Score:2)
I posted 2+2=5 years ago and the message is still up.
Re: (Score:3)
Posting that isn't going to kill anyone and doesn't enrich you through confidence tricks and manipulation. It is therefore free speech, not a criminal act. You can even define an algebra where that equation is correct, although I don't suppose it would be terribly useful. That would seem to place such a post in an ever-so-slightly different ballpark than one in which people are directly threatened, injured or killed as a consequence, where that was the desired consequence.
Re: you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: you mean social media censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
And of course, the arbiter of what constitutes True Honest Science (TM) is a couple of busybodies on Facebook and Twitter
Or you know.. Don't go to social media trying to get a firm grasp on science. Instead go to the actual scientist and get real science. Or even better, if you're feeling frisky, go to a school and be taught science.
They're the experts who get to decide
No, the people who decide what gets to stay and what has to go on social media are more than likely underpaid workers who are just clicking shit to ensure they keep getting a paycheck. Which is why, (say it with me now) YOU. SHOULDN'T. RELY. ON. SOCIAL. MEDIA. FOR. JACK. SHIT.
All the studies that agree with my political side are genius and true while all yours are evil and wrong and must be blocked
You know what's even more interesting. Folks who believe that all this "science" HAS TO BE "political". Those people are very interesting.
Re: you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Funny)
Or you know.. Don't go to social media trying to get a firm grasp on science.
Oh so that's how we fix things: tell people to be sensible. I'm amazed I never thought of that before it's such a simple idea.
Re: you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think I can put into polite words just what I think of you and your parent poster right now.
Put it into impolite ones?
I don't disagree with the parent poster that people should get information from good quality sources. However, they don't and telling people they ought to won't fix it.
Do you fundamentally disagree with either of those points?
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, the arbiter of what constitutes True Honest Science (TM) is a couple of busybodies on Facebook and Twitter.
No. The arbiter is peer review, for articles published in respected journals. In case of medicine: The Lancet, Nature, BMJ.
All the studies that agree with my political side are genius and true while all yours are evil and wrong and must be blocked. Science says so.
When the vast majority of peer-reviewed credible studies all disagree with your position, then perhaps the problem is in you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have counter-evidence based on tests and trials that are statistically significant and done under controlled conditions then you have the ability to come with critic on the science someone else have done.
If you just work on assumptions and what you have seen on the internet then you are the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have counter-evidence based on tests and trials that are statistically significant and done under controlled conditions
Nonsense. Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof lies with the scientist making the affirmative assertion. No "counter-evidence" is needed to question if a new theory is valid. If a skeptic can credibly point out that the presented evidence is insufficient, that is a valid critique.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If a skeptic can credibly point out that the presented evidence is insufficient, that is a valid critique
No it is not. You will be laughed out of the room if you attempt that. Science is a body of work. Contributions are what they are contributions. We didn't toss Newton out the window because he couldn't properly explain Mercury's orbit.
No "counter-evidence" is needed to question if a new theory is valid
Wow. Did anyone on this website actually go to college and take a 100 level science course? So this, no need for counter-evidence, that's why the fundamental write up for the Michelson–Morley experiment is "I don't believe you, ergo your idea of aether is bullshit.
Re:you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
The MM experiment contradicted the luminous ether theory but offered no alternative explanation.
Luminous ether theory was overturned by a dude named Albert Einstein who had no new data.
Re:you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stamping your feet and howling about the jewish mindcontrol chips being hidden in vaccines is not "questioning science", its a declaration of unmedicated paranoid schizophrenia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stamping your feet and howling about the jewish mindcontrol chips being hidden in vaccines is not "questioning science", its a declaration of unmedicated paranoid schizophrenia.
While you are correct, trying to drive this stuff underground is counterproductive. It makes them feel persecuted, which serves to confirm their wild paranoia.
The shocking extent of today's conspiracy theories is enabled by "Internet bubbles". However, forcing those bubbles into dark corners where you don't see them any more doesn't solve the problem. The Internet has had many effects on society, mostly positive, but "bubbles" are a negative one. And we're going to have to find a productive way to deal wi
Re:you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it counterproductive? They are saying that blocks will just drive it to parts of the web that can't be touched, but that means it won't be on the mainstream sites where people are likely to see it.
From a medical standpoint it's much better that you have 99% vaccination rates and a stubborn 1% who know how to find those obscure sites, than to have 70% vaccination rates and 30% who are on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you are correct, trying to drive this stuff underground is counterproductive. It makes them feel persecuted, which serves to confirm their wild paranoia.
They are addicted to feeling persecuted, because they can then blame anything they want on someone else. They will be wildly paranoid no matter what the rest of us do.
This is not like Nazis where if you drive them underground they still drag people behind pickup trucks. These people are just going to continue to be antivaxxers. They will do the same damage no matter what. But by driving them off of mainstream social media you prevent most people having to see their bullshit, which helps prevent them being r
Re:you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stamping your feet and howling about the jewish mindcontrol chips being hidden in vaccines is not "questioning science", its a declaration of unmedicated paranoid schizophrenia.
Totally agree. But the stuff that is being banned on FB and other platforms includes plenty of information that *isn't* crazy, such as the idea that the virus may have made the jump to humans in a lab where viruses such as this are studied.
I noted last year there were many stories such as this one:
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Didn't get a "fact check". It's literally fake news. It didn't happen. You may note that the "fact checkers" finally got around to it after being hounded by right-wingers. This fake story was touted by Rachel Maddow, Business Insider, and a host of other left-leaning news outlets. Nobody apparently thought to simply call the hospital and ask them.
Hunter Biden's laptop was another story that would get you kicked off Twitter or whatever, but it turns out it really is Hunter Biden's laptop.
There's been plenty of stuff that's factual yet marked as "wrong" by social media because it doesn't follow the left-wing narrative of the day. I think a lot of you on the left don't have any idea how bad it really is because you don't get full stories. You don't realize that your news organizations are basically Fox News with a different slant.
Re:you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you can't question science, It is no longer science. It is propaganda.
You can question science alright, but when you start questioning demonstrably provable facts like the earth being an irregularly shaped ellipsoid you are not advancing science anymore, you are wasting everybody's time with flat-earther moron bullshit. The same goes for calming that eating horse de-worming medication is a better for preventing viral infections than vaccines are because:
None of that is science, the kindest name for those conspiracy theories is 'folklore', the realistic name is 'bullshit only morons would believe'.
Re:you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
...data showing that current covid vaccines are simply not very effective ...
[citation needed]
you're simply labelled a denier.
Awwww ... people aren't uncritically accepting your 'deeply held beliefs' as fact ... you poor, poor, #victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Logical coherent thought is a white-centric heteronormative oppressive tool to enforce hegemonic systemic bigotry. Even worse, it doesnâ(TM)t express lived experience.
Subjectivity is valuable because people's lived experiences are valuable - because people's spoken truths are, in and of themselves, truths. When it comes to conversations about social justice and oppression, objectivity is a myth. [everydayfeminism.com]
"Objectivity as found through rational thought is a western and masculine concept that we will challenge throughout this text." [youtube.com]
Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, evidence, epistemic adequacy, and other Enlightenment-based tools of persuasion are the very thing they think produced injustice in the world in the first place. Those are not their methods and they reject them. Their methods are, instead, storytelling and counter-storytelling, appealing to emotions and subjectively interpreted lived experience [newdiscourses.com], and problematizing [newdiscourses.com] arguments morally, on their moral terms [newdiscourses.com]. Because they know the dominant liberal order values those things sense far less than rigor, evidence, and reasoned argument, they believe the whole conversation and debate game is intrinsically rigged against them in a way that not only leads to their certain loss but also that props up the existing system [newdiscourses.com] and then further delegitimizes the approaches they advance in their place. Critical Social Justice Theorists genuinely believe getting away from the âoemaster's toolsâ is necessary to break the hegemony [newdiscourses.com] of the dominant modes of thought. Debate is a no-win for them.
None of that links to scientific data validating your or anybody else's "deeply held belief" that current Covid vaccines are "simply not very effective", just a bunch of right-wing political garbage. Now try again you poor, poor, #victim.
Re: (Score:3)
You can always question science. Just be ready to get stomped into the ground when you're wrong.
Re:you mean social media censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about questioning science, though. This is about cynical manipulation and wilful disinformation campaigns by people who dress it up as questioning science. Nobody should be deterred from questioning and skeptical inquiry, but this is very very different from trying to bilk people of money by using fake cures for diseases, using propaganda and information warfare to manufacture an otherwise non-existant customer base.
Re: (Score:3)
When you can't question science, It is no longer science. It is propaganda.
If you claim you're "questioning" and "open minded" but you have no interest in listening to answers or changing your uninformed opinion for an informed one, you're not questioning.
Re:totally wrong (Score:5, Informative)
It might have been considered heresy by certain groups, but such groups were not scientific ones, and at no point was it *EVER* scientific misinformation.
People have known that the earth was round for many thousands of years, stretching back as written history at least.. Widespread belief in a flat earth is by comparison far younger.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:totally wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Eratosthenes - Measurement of Earth's circumference - 240 B.C. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
People have known that the earth was round for many thousands of years, stretching back as written history at least..
The Greeks pretty much broadly accepted a globe earth during the first century BCE. They were a bit ahead of the curve so to speak, but either way 2.5 is on the lower end of "many" and doesn't predate writing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the most subtly funny things I have seen on the Internet in several years. Well done!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:totally wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
By your logic, no answer on a high school chemistry exam should ever be marked wrong because who's to say it might not be proven right some day?
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, no answer on a high school chemistry exam should ever be marked wrong
Bullcrap. That is not the point at all.
There is a big difference between saying "You are wrong" and "You aren't allowed to say that."
Anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and climate denialists are wrong in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. They still have a right to voice their opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course those opinions hurt others or society as a whole. Voicing my "opinion" that the building is on fire when you have no proof whatsoever can't be defended by saying that you can't be sure it isn't on fire, because maybe in a closet on the 27th floor a fire indeed just started and you might be proven right later.
So, might those anti-vaxxers be proven right later? Sure, why not, stranger things have happened. Are they currently providing any proof? No, they're not, so in hindsight they'll still
Re: (Score:3)
Is there something wrong with it? What, exactly, is your objection to it?
Re:totally wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between saying "You are wrong" and "You aren't allowed to say that."
There's a big difference between saying "you are allowed to say that, legally" and saying "here's a megaphone, bucko, go nuts".
Re: (Score:2)
What you refer to wasn't scientific misinformation, it was revealing that religions had their pants in a bunch around their ankles and that couldn't be permitted to spread.
Not by learned people (Score:5, Informative)
Somewhat appropriately in your defensive misinformation you managed to spread this information. Good job I guess?
Re:totally wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Considering humans have broadly agreed that the earth is round for as long as written records have existed, outside of a few religious groups who at the time where far from the orthodoxy, I highly suspect the concept of "scientific misinformation" didnt actually existed in such (possibly mythical) times.
Re: (Score:3)
at one time it was considered scientific misinformation to tell others the earth was round and it was not the center of the universe.
No, it was consider religious misinformation.
Re: What? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm organising 270 signatures from doctors, dentists, marriage counsellors, and parking attendants to demand their removal.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, are you just saying "the solution to bad speech is more speech"?
Oy.
Re: (Score:2)
Alex Jones is wrong because he can't prove the chemtrails are turning the frogs gay.
Amphibians tend to be very sensitive to pollution as they at least partially breath thru their skin. Human caused pollution has been legitimately shown to cause higher than normal spontaneous sex changes in frogs.
Alex Jones is not only a crackpot he whores himself out knowingly spewing things he knows are bullshit to make money. I find it quite sad when people attacking him often can't be bothered to expend the minimum effort required to land a valid argument without themselves resorting to hyperbole and
Re: What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Alex Jones is not only a crackpot he whores himself out knowingly spewing things he knows are bullshit to make money. I find it quite sad when people attacking him often can't be bothered to expend the minimum effort required to land a valid argument
Lol, he is a widely known crackpot bullshitter, then chiding people for not articulating well formed gay-frog chemtrail counter arguments.
Are you familiar with the concept of Good Faith?
Re: What? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is right, and it is the essential issue. Alex-Jonesers rely on exploiting the rules of good faith dialog, they are not good faith actors themselves and take advantage of their opponents not playing by the same rules.
This is the core problem. These "researchers" advise that we deal with bad faith actors in good faith. That is, by definition, a failing approach. I have absolutely no confidence that their "research" supports their conclusions but am not going to bother looking into it, I know their conclusions are wrong because they simply do not pass the sniff test. I would say it is more likely that the "researchers" themselves are bad faith actors with hidden motives than it is that their research has merit.
If it were the case that good faith, objective considerations would work, we would not have the social troubles we currently have. We know with confidence that the advised approach already does not work. It does not work because people like Alex Jones are bad faith actors that specifically exploit social weaknesses. Of course, Alex Jones is not good enough to become a major threat, but others are. The proper approach is to be much LESS tolerant of bullshit and to attach even more significant penalties for it. How to do that fairly is the hard part, but the basic problem is what it has always been: do we cooperate for our mutual benefit or do we allow sociopaths to destroy our society for their personal benefit?
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
he whores himself out knowingly spewing things he knows are bullshit to make money
Concrete examples, please.
Alex Jones propagated the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a crisis actor performance, for clicks: https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Not that it did him much good in the end but then again Jones does not seem to be the type of person that spends a lot of time thinking his business models through to their logical conclusion.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Alex Jones is a professional bullshitter.
It's time to avoid reactive actions and start being proactive to take out the rug from under the feet of the bullshitters.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
start being proactive to take out the rug from under the feet of the bullshitters.
You could start by saying what you mean rather than using vague metaphors like "take out the rug." What are you actually advocating?
If you mean censoring, that is exactly what TFA says is counterproductive. You are feeding the victimhood narrative of the bullshitt*rs. The best antidote to false speech is the truth, not the censor.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, he's lost a few lawsuits against him, he's pretty much washed up at this point. And he only lost because he refused to respond to discovery requests and treated the whole thing incorrectly as a SLAPP suit. Not because he was an idiot acting as his own lawyer, but because he had idiot lawyers who bought into silly theories as well. He'll whine and moan that the judge was corrupt, but it was default judgement which is what happens when one party refuses to participate.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could be that you lose lawsuits intentionally rather than reveal that it's all a lie. A lot of information would be getting out there if something went through court fully.
Re: (Score:3)
start being proactive to take out the rug from under the feet of the bullshitters.
You could start by saying what you mean rather than using vague metaphors like "take out the rug." What are you actually advocating?
De-platforming, which is no more censorship than throwing a drunk loudmouthed hooligan out of your bar is censorship. The morons are going to believe what the morons want to believe. There is no changing the minds of these people, just making sure the loudest of them have nowhere else to scream their message than into their own echo chamber in some obscure discussion group on Parler, Reddit or 4chan. Eventually large numbers of them will win a Darwin award anyway and there is no preventing that eiter.
Re: (Score:3)
De-platforming, which is no more censorship than throwing a drunk loudmouthed hooligan out of your bar is censorship. Except when you and all the other barkeeps get together and create a list of hooligan's you'll refuse entry to. That starts to look like censorship. It's even better when you kick out Alex Jones, but keep the 9/11 truthers and other crackpots around b/c they're your kind of crazy. Be sure to claim a dedication to the truth while you do so.
And? Hooligans are generally not welcome anywhere at all. Making a list of them is just being efficient.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Among learned professionals the better logic should win. And there isn't much scientific debate over the broad contours of covid, or vaccines, or global warming.
But among laypeople, logic often comes a distant second to worldview. Logic and hard-facts will almost never be as appealing as half-truths assembled according to our desires and unrecognized faults. Even when there are high incentives to get vaccinated, and potentially catastrophic consequences for not getting vaccinated, a significant number of Americans insist on getting the answer wrong, because deciding otherwise would change their view of themselves.
Regardless of whether deplatforming works to slow the flow of disinformation, I can imagine civically-minded executives asking whether they want to profit off it, just as they may not want to profit off tobacco advertising or encouraging unattainable standards of beauty among young women. Since the actual paper is not linked by the summary, I'll provide it here in case such mythological creatures are reading. [royalsociety.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Worth mentioning that scientists and "learned professionals" are usually not trained in logic. The whole point of science is to get more evidence, and they are trained to do exactly that in any confusing situation.
Which is a useful approach, but it's different than being good at logic.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the times what happens is you only have a subset of the relevant facts, and whatever logic you apply to such a subset, you are almost guaranteed a garbage conclusion. For example, the US currently does it's best to still sideline the fact that covid is airborne. It this crucial fact is ignored, how can you expect to reach a competent political outcome, as in school ventilation for example? Instead, you get the current explosion of omicron.
A lot of the
Re: (Score:2)
Without CCP levels of censorship and thought control you cannot hide ideas from the people of a country. And it's the people who should run their country not the intellectuals. That fails rather spectacularly when it is tried. It appears the CCP has managed its country into a fiscal disaster, for example. The CCCP made that error and failed, fortunately without widespread bloodshed thanks to Gorby.
If people get access to well reasoned information, true or not, popular with the leaders or not, the idea will
Re: What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I see some flaws in the idea that someone, somewhere, gets to be the arbiter of who is worth listening to, and who isn't.
And yes, while ideally ideas should be discussed and resolved by experts, in fact:
1) experts are still human beings, filled with personalities, biases, politics, preferences, all of which will color their interpretations. Experts are not emotionless automata.
2) experts are often the worst to make general decisions because they are experts. If you have a house with a bad roof and an electrical problem, and can only afford to fix ones of the problems first, one expert (the roofer) will tell you that you MUST address the roof, because it's critical. Another expert (the electrician) will insist the electrics as far more important.
Neither of them is the right person to decide which to fix: as the homeowner, that is your call, because you have to live with the consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to post basically the same thing. FTFS:
Re: (Score:2)
"Hands Up Don't Shoot" is misinformation
Let's see if you can back up that claim with some evidence...
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:3)
"who defines information and misinformation?"
Me, hopefully.