Government prevention of misinformation, and a question for progressives

[RaleBulgarian]

And what would you use those "objective criteria" to do?

EDIT: and that is leaving aside, of course, the rather important question of how "objective" is defined and who is the final arbiter of whether something is "objective".

You’re really splitting nonsensical hairs here.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What criteria? I

Objective criteria.

 

[vanceen]

Can’t be too slippery, considering the criteria I posted has been in use for more than a century.

There aren't any objective criteria that can be used to determine absolutely whether any statement is true or not.

Philosophers have struggled with this for many centuries. What is knowledge? Can we really know anything? What does it mean to say something is "true"?

People will have different views on what is true and what is not, based on different bodies of evidence which may or may not be valid, and using logic which may or may not be sound.

There's a range of things that we can be quite sure are "true". Water has hydrogen and oxygen in it. It's conceivable we're mistaken about that, but it would mean there have been a lot of huge mistakes made, and it would have to be considered improbable.

But was the Moon landing faked? Did Oswald act alone? Was 911 an inside job? I'm pretty well persuaded that the answers are "no", "yes", and "no", but many people are convinced that they are the reverse. I can't unequivocally prove them wrong. I can just look at what evidence I know of and decide what's most probable.

In a large population, lots of people will hold lots of different opinions. So what do we do about it? I would say we should try to be as data-based as possible and each individual decide for themselves.

The solution is NOT to put government in charge of saying what's true and what isn't (sorry, that's a step that can't be skipped) and asking government to forbid saying things its decides are not true.

 

[Lursa]

If deliberate misstatements can be proved and connected with harm, there should be legal prosecution.

Giving government prior restraint over facts which may be in question is far from the same thing.

I'm accepting your statements here as neutral. Here's an example: some people/Drs/sites promoting the use of Ivermectin to cure covid instead of getting the vaccine.

This information was proven wrong (overall the medical community published plenty of data demonstrating it) and was also dangerous in many cases.

Where do you think the govt's responsibility lies with that kind of demonstrably wrong, widely unsupported by the medical community, and potentially dangerous info? What, if any action, should the federal govt take? (Not sure about states yet).

 

[vanceen]

You’re really splitting nonsensical hairs here.

No, it isn't splitting hairs.

You claim that it isn't about deciding what is true or false. Then you say we should use "objective criteria". It's obvious that the use of objective criteria is to try to decide what's true and false!

Moreover, people will disagree about what's objective.

 

[vanceen]

Not to derail from Rale <<--unintended

...but the better question is this:

Why do so many people believe in stolen elections? Twitter, Facebook, the NYT or WSJ, it really doesn't matter which, if we have such a large percentage of people who are willing to accept falsehood as truth.

Things are looking better on this front, though:

MSN

• A recent poll from Quinnipiac University shows 30 percent of Republicans say the results of the 2022 election were not legitimate. That compares to 70 percent of Republicans who agreed with Trump’s false claim that President-elect Joe Biden’s 2020 win was illegitimate. (That number held strong into the 2022 election year.)
• A poll from the Marquette University law school shows 16 percent of Republicans say they’re “not at all confident” that the 2022 votes were accurately cast and counted. That compares to 36 percent in the same poll who said the same about the 2020 election results.
• The Pew Research Center also has a series of applicable findings on this question. Its poll last week showed 53 percent of Republicans say the 2022 election was run at least “somewhat well,” compared to just 21 percent who said the same after the 2020 election.

That's still unacceptable, but at least the trend is in the right direction.

I fully agree, "Why do so many people believe in stolen elections?" is a far better question.

Over time, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that social media algorithms are exarcerbating hugely the natural divisions in society. Small divisions are becoming enormous divisions as people spend more and more time in echo chambers, talking to people who think like they do.

The fact that these media are in the hands of such a very small number of players should raise some alarm bells.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Until you have been fined or arrested by the government because of what you have posted your free speech rights are intact. being banned from social media because you cannot obey the TOS is not a violation of your free speech rights.

After the release of the Twitter files that's not always correct. The banning of Trump, even though employees of Twitter themselves couldn't find anything Trump said that violated Twitters TOS.

 

[vanceen]

I'm accepting your statements here as neutral. Here's an example: some people/Drs/sites promoting the use of Ivermectin to cure covid instead of getting the vaccine.

This information was proven wrong (overall the medical community published plenty of data demonstrating it) and was also dangerous in many cases.

Where do you think the govt's responsibility lies with that kind of demonstrably wrong, widely unsupported by the medical community, and potentially dangerous info? What, if any action, should the federal govt take? (Not sure about states yet).

I think that the most the government can or should do is promote information that reflects the medical consensus.

Parenthetically, I don't think that such information is guaranteed to be correct, and I don't think the government ought to be promoting one line or the other except in an emergency.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There aren't any objective criteria that can be used to determine absolutely whether any statement is true or not.

An embarrassingly stupid assertion.

If I say “the clouds in the sky are made of cotton candy”, you’re telling me that my statement cannot be objectively proven wrong?

Philosophers have struggled with this for many centuries. What is knowledge? Can we really know anything? What does it mean to say something is "true"?

People will have different views on what is true and what is not, based on different bodies of evidence which may or may not be valid, and using logic which may or may not be sound.

There's a range of things that we can be quite sure are "true". Water has hydrogen and oxygen in it. It's conceivable we're mistaken about that, but it would mean there have been a lot of huge mistakes made, and it would have to be considered improbable.

But was the Moon landing faked? Did Oswald act alone? Was 911 an inside job? I'm pretty well persuaded that the answers are "no", "yes", and "no", but many people are convinced that they are the reverse. I can't unequivocally prove them wrong. I can just look at what evidence I know of and decide what's most probable.

In a large population, lots of people will hold lots of different opinions. So what do we do about it? I would say we should try to be as data-based as possible and each individual decide for themselves.

More nonsensical distraction.

We aren’t talking about philosophies or personal perspectives.

We’re talking about objectively wrong, and potentially harmful claims being disseminated on social media platforms.

At least, that’s what I’m talking about.

The solution is NOT to put government in charge of saying what's true and what isn't (sorry, that's a step that can't be skipped) and asking government to forbid saying things its decides are not true.

I agree. Although, again, that isn’t what I’m talking about.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No, it isn't splitting hairs.

You claim that it isn't about deciding what is true or false. Then you say we should use "objective criteria". It's obvious that the use of objective criteria is to try to decide what's true and false!

Moreover, people will disagree about what's objective.

Only morons that don’t know the definition of “objective”.

 

[Michael Cole]

No, it isn't splitting hairs.

You claim that it isn't about deciding is true or false. Then you say we should use "objective criteria". It's obvious that the use of objective criteria is to try to decide what's true and false!

Moreover, people will disagree about what's objective.

If a claim is made but no evidence provided, can we objectively say the claim is false?

Theoretically, no. Lack of evidence is not lack of truth. However, we're dealing with information, truth in information.

Humans are emotionally frail creatures, generally. Belief without evidence has been with us forever - it's called religion. It's a constitutionally guaranteed right, but should this "believe whatever you want without evidence" right be enshrined in our culture as it would apply to everything else? Should politics be a faith-based institution?

At some point, we have to face the reality of what's happening. Many people already see the nation sliding toward theocracy. If it becomes acceptable to see politics through a lens of faith alone, then we are in trouble.

I give the American people a lot of credit, so I'm not very concerned. We are not a country of whack-jobs; we're just going through a phase where whack-jobbery is popular.

 

[Lursa]

I think that the most the government can or should do is promote information that reflects the medical consensus.

Parenthetically, I don't think that such information is guaranteed to be correct, and I don't think the government ought to be promoting one line or the other except in an emergency.

Wait, wut? If you are referring to covid, there were no guarantees promised but they were going with the medical community and standard epidemiology protocols, etc. Is it your opinion that the govt should not have promoted the masks, staying home, washing hands, vaccines, etc and instead, just have published those recommendations at the same level of validity and legitimacy as ivermectin, bleach, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), etc?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

After the release of the Twitter files that's not always correct. The banning of Trump, even though employees of Twitter themselves couldn't find anything Trump said that violated Twitters TOS.

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump​

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

 

[Michael Cole]

View attachment 67426942

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump​

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

The Twitter files are straight out of the Trump playbook. They're meant to sow confusion, and they have succeeded at this.

Do you expect Musk to ever realize it's only a segment of society that's susceptible to such mindless attempts at confusion? I mean, we already know Trumpists are confused. What does Musk gain other than shining a light on the nation's idiots?

 

[jpevans]

There aren't any objective criteria that can be used to determine absolutely whether any statement is true or not.

Philosophers have struggled with this for many centuries. What is knowledge? Can we really know anything? What does it mean to say something is "true"?

People will have different views on what is true and what is not, based on different bodies of evidence which may or may not be valid, and using logic which may or may not be sound.

There's a range of things that we can be quite sure are "true". Water has hydrogen and oxygen in it. It's conceivable we're mistaken about that, but it would mean there have been a lot of huge mistakes made, and it would have to be considered improbable.

But was the Moon landing faked? Did Oswald act alone? Was 911 an inside job? I'm pretty well persuaded that the answers are "no", "yes", and "no", but many people are convinced that they are the reverse. I can't unequivocally prove them wrong. I can just look at what evidence I know of and decide what's most probable.

In a large population, lots of people will hold lots of different opinions. So what do we do about it? I would say we should try to be as data-based as possible and each individual decide for themselves.

The solution is NOT to put government in charge of saying what's true and what isn't (sorry, that's a step that can't be skipped) and asking government to forbid saying things its decides are not true.

I'm more No, Maybe, No...

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The Twitter files are straight out of the Trump playbook. They're meant to sow confusion, and they have succeeded at this.

Do you expect Musk to ever realize it's only a segment of society that's susceptible to such mindless attempts at confusion? I mean, we already know Trumpists are confused. What does Musk gain other than shining a light on the nation's idiots?

I won’t attempt any guess at what Musk might think in the future, but presently Musk is a member of that minority group of idiots, and like the rest of them, appears oblivious to his own idiocy.

 

[vanceen]

Wait, wut? If you are referring to covid, there were no guarantees promised but they were going with the medical community and standard epidemiology protocols, etc. Is it your opinion that the govt should not have promoted the masks, staying home, washing hands, vaccines, etc and instead, just have published those recommendations at the same level of validity and legitimacy as ivermectin, bleach, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), etc?

I thought what I said was pretty clear, but I'll try to clarify.

When I said that information from the government is not guaranteed to be true, I meant that generally, with no specific information in mind.

As for the rest, there was an emergency, and I think promoting information about Covid management was entirely appropriate. I don't think they were necessarily right about lockdowns and some of the alternative treatments, but I believe their advice was given in good faith in a time of emergency. I really don't want to derail the thread into a discussion of Covid measures.

 

[vanceen]

An embarrassingly stupid assertion.

If I say “the clouds in the sky are made of cotton candy”, you’re telling me that my statement cannot be objectively proven wrong?

More nonsensical distraction.

We aren’t talking about philosophies or personal perspectives.

We’re talking about objectively wrong, and potentially harmful claims being disseminated on social media platforms.

At least, that’s what I’m talking about.

I think you have a very naive epistemology. As I tried to say, there are some statements about which we can be practically certain. There are also others which are much harder to confirm or deny on an objective basis. I don't want the government to be the clearing house for open questions.

I agree. Although, again, that isn’t what I’m talking about.

That's what the thread is about.

 

[vanceen]

Only morons that don’t know the definition of “objective”.

I didn't say anything about definitions.

Knowing the definition of "objective" doesn't mean you can always tell what piece of information is objectively true or not.

 

[Lursa]

I thought what I said was pretty clear, but I'll try to clarify.

When I said that information from the government is not guaranteed to be true, I meant that generally, with no specific information in mind.

As for the rest, there was an emergency, and I think promoting information about Covid management was entirely appropriate. I don't think they were necessarily right about lockdowns and some of the alternative treatments, but I believe their advice was given in good faith in a time of emergency. I really don't want to derail the thread into a discussion of Covid measures.

Thanks. It's not topic-specific, so please consider that just an example.

There are many times when the govt needs to disseminate information to the citizens. I dont think it needs to be an emergency, it can be the assessment and treatments of the budget in our response to inflation, for example. That uses data and real $ and also estimates and economic predictions. It's not an emergency.

Please consider what I wrote previously: should the govt information presented to the public on their assessments and actions on the budget in response to inflation be presented at the same level of validity and legitimacy as the same messaging from other's like opposing politicians, social media, news talking heads, other economic "experts," etc?

 

[JasperL]

I'm accepting your statements here as neutral. Here's an example: some people/Drs/sites promoting the use of Ivermectin to cure covid instead of getting the vaccine.

This information was proven wrong (overall the medical community published plenty of data demonstrating it) and was also dangerous in many cases.

Where do you think the govt's responsibility lies with that kind of demonstrably wrong, widely unsupported by the medical community, and potentially dangerous info? What, if any action, should the federal govt take? (Not sure about states yet).

To me the USG's responsibility is to express those conclusions, and the data to back them up. That's it.

Let me give you a counter example. According to the USG we should all eat a bunch of grains and carbs and avoid fats and especially saturated fat. I'm pretty sure that at least for many of us that is TERRIBLE advice, especially for the half or so of the population with diabetes or pre-diabetes. The evidence to support the US dietary guidelines, at least to the extent they are presented as more or less universal, is weak - that's clear enough.

But the point isn't who is right - I know low carb, high fat works for ME, and I don't care at all how much saturated fat I eat if it's from natural sources our bodies have been using for fuel for 1000s of years. I eat this way and have fairly effortlessly lost 50 lbs and kept it off for over a year now, without trying. The question is whether the government should suppress the alternative to the high carb, grains, etc. diet. I don't think they should. The "truth" in diets is presented as 'objective' but it's in fact quite subjective. I'm fine with the government issuing dietary guidelines as misguided as I think they are, but it's a different ballgame entirely when the keto or LCHF advice out there is suppressed by the government as untrue or lies.

So on your specific question, I believe the data show that ivermectin is pretty useless, if not harmful, but dangerous for us to accept that it's government's job to prohibit that view from being aired. The government is wrong often enough that I don't think they should have the power to suppress information.

 

[Lursa]

To me the USG's responsibility is to express those conclusions, and the data to back them up. That's it.

Let me give you a counter example. According to the USG we should all eat a bunch of grains and carbs and avoid fats and especially saturated fat. I'm pretty sure that at least for many of us that is TERRIBLE advice, especially for the half or so of the population with diabetes or pre-diabetes. The evidence to support the US dietary guidelines, at least to the extent they are presented as more or less universal, is weak - that's clear enough.

But the point isn't who is right - I know low carb, high fat works for ME, and I don't care at all how much saturated fat I eat if it's from natural sources our bodies have been using for fuel for 1000s of years. I eat this way and have fairly effortlessly lost 50 lbs and kept it off for over a year now, without trying. The question is whether the government should suppress the alternative to the high carb, grains, etc. diet. I don't think they should. The "truth" in diets is presented as 'objective' but it's in fact quite subjective. I'm fine with the government issuing dietary guidelines as misguided as I think they are, but it's a different ballgame entirely when the keto or LCHF advice out there is suppressed by the government as untrue or lies.

So on your specific question, I believe the data show that ivermectin is pretty useless, if not harmful, but dangerous for us to accept that it's government's job to prohibit that view from being aired. The government is wrong often enough that I don't think they should have the power to suppress information.

I'm not suggesting suppression, that's why I wrote of levels of validity and legitimacy.

So it's more about credibility, credible sources of info.

Do you and @vanceen think that 'credibility' and legitimacy of information should be provided for citizens? Or, just put the info out there and let the public decide? Let people take ivermectin if they want to use poorly-supported sources, for example? (Which, essentially, they did. THere were no witch hunts to stop it)

As I keep writing these, I'm reminded of this from Isaac Asimov:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”​

 

[vanceen]

Thanks. It's not topic-specific, so please consider that just an example.

There are many times when the govt needs to disseminate information to the citizens. I dont think it needs to be an emergency, it can be the assessment and treatments of the budget in our response to inflation, for example. That uses data and real $ and also estimates and economic predictions. It's not an emergency.

Please consider what I wrote previously: should the govt information presented to the public on their assessments and actions on the budget in response to inflation be presented at the same level of validity and legitimacy as the same messaging from other's like opposing politicians, social media, news talking heads, other economic "experts," etc?

Thanks.

I think the government certainly will present their perspective on assessments and actions on the budget in response to inflation.

I don't know what it means to present information "at the same level of validity and legitimacy as...". Some people will give more weight to information from the government because it's the government. Other people won't believe a word of it because it's the government.

I think both points of view are wrong, but I don't think it's the government's job to ensure we have correct points of view.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I think you have a very naive epistemology.

And I’m certain you’re digging way up into your own keister, trying justify/explain away your previous objectively stupid assertion.

There aren't any objective criteria that can be used to determine absolutely whether any statement is true or not.

As I tried to say, there are some statements about which we can be practically certain. There are also others which are much harder to confirm or deny on an objective basis. I don't want the government to be the clearing house for open questions.

If you did, there’s no indication that your thoughts made it from your head to your fingers.

That's what the thread is about.

The thread is about “Government prevention of misinformation”.

 

[Lursa]

Thanks.

I think the government certainly will present their perspective on assessments and actions on the budget in response to inflation.

I don't know what it means to present information "at the same level of validity and legitimacy as...". Some people will give more weight to information from the government because it's the government. Other people won't believe a word of it because it's the government.

I think both points of view are wrong, but I don't think it's the government's job to ensure we have correct points of view.

Well I think we saw how terribly stupid so many of our citizens are, how poor their judgement, allowing for their biases to overrule common sense AND actual data and expert recommendations...changing horses mid-stream for example on the vaccine based on 'which side' was recommending it...and how immensely blinded those are that still believe the 2020 election was stolen...and I find it concerning that a) the numbers of such people are so high and b) wonder just how much control shitty information will be able to influence our govt's direction (voters, representatives) in the future.