Misinformation and Censorship

[Loulit01]

From Scientific American:

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’
“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable
[W]hile news outlets have spilled a great deal of ink reporting on “fake news,” little has been done to reflect on their own role in promoting misbelief. Journalists must internalize the fact that their own reach is far greater than that of the hoax outlets they frequently criticize—and thus their responsibility is much larger. Unintentional missteps—like misleading reporting about a Gaza hospital explosion and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—from mainstream media have vastly more impact than a torrent of largely unseen falsehoods from “fake news” outlets. Even though the pressure to chase clicks and ratings is intense, journalists must maintain vigilance against misleading headlines and reporting of politicians’ lies without context.

Finally, social media companies such as Meta, YouTube and TikTok must do more. Their current approaches to combating misinformation, based on professional fact-checking, largely turn a blind eye to misinforming content that doesn't fit the “fake news” mold—and thus miss most of the problem. Platforms often exempt politicians from fact-checking and deprioritize fact-checks on posts from mainstream sources. But this content is precisely what has huge reach and therefore the greatest potential for harm—and thus is more important to tackle than relatively low exposure “fake news.” Interventions must shift to reflect this reality. For example, common media literacy approaches that combat misinformation by emphasizing source credibility may backfire when misleading content comes from trusted sources.

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’

“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable

www.scientificamerican.com

I can't sum up information like this in a sentence or two. You're going to have read the article.

 

[BirdinHand]

Teach your children to recognize misinformation.

Teach yourself to recognize misinformation



Oh hell…never mind.

Half the population of this country is flat out stupid.

 

[Gordy327]

Teach your children to recognize misinformation.

Teach yourself to recognize misinformation



Oh hell…never mind.

Half the population of this country is flat out stupid.

Only half? That's being generous. lol

 

[Napoleon]

Misinformation has been a feature of American politics since day 1 and SA isn’t immune to it either since it decided to wade into politics.

 

[eohrnberger]

From Scientific American:

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’
“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable
[W]hile news outlets have spilled a great deal of ink reporting on “fake news,” little has been done to reflect on their own role in promoting misbelief. Journalists must internalize the fact that their own reach is far greater than that of the hoax outlets they frequently criticize—and thus their responsibility is much larger. Unintentional missteps—like misleading reporting about a Gaza hospital explosion and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—from mainstream media have vastly more impact than a torrent of largely unseen falsehoods from “fake news” outlets. Even though the pressure to chase clicks and ratings is intense, journalists must maintain vigilance against misleading headlines and reporting of politicians’ lies without context.

Finally, social media companies such as Meta, YouTube and TikTok must do more. Their current approaches to combating misinformation, based on professional fact-checking, largely turn a blind eye to misinforming content that doesn't fit the “fake news” mold—and thus miss most of the problem. Platforms often exempt politicians from fact-checking and deprioritize fact-checks on posts from mainstream sources. But this content is precisely what has huge reach and therefore the greatest potential for harm—and thus is more important to tackle than relatively low exposure “fake news.” Interventions must shift to reflect this reality. For example, common media literacy approaches that combat misinformation by emphasizing source credibility may backfire when misleading content comes from trusted sources.

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’

“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable

www.scientificamerican.com

I can't sum up information like this in a sentence or two. You're going to have read the article.

As a side note, what does any of the above have to do with anything 'scientific'? And why is it being published in 'Scientific American'?

Scientific American Completes the transition from science to politics

I just received an email for Scientific American saying. SA Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment Forget Trump for a second as he is almost irrelevant to this discussion. The concept of following evidence based science and supporting the current statement of the...

debatepolitics.com

There you go.

That being said, I'm glad they are calling out the Dem's MSM propaganda organs on their purporting their 'misinformation'.

 

[ttwtt78640]

From Scientific American:

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’
“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable
[W]hile news outlets have spilled a great deal of ink reporting on “fake news,” little has been done to reflect on their own role in promoting misbelief. Journalists must internalize the fact that their own reach is far greater than that of the hoax outlets they frequently criticize—and thus their responsibility is much larger. Unintentional missteps—like misleading reporting about a Gaza hospital explosion and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—from mainstream media have vastly more impact than a torrent of largely unseen falsehoods from “fake news” outlets. Even though the pressure to chase clicks and ratings is intense, journalists must maintain vigilance against misleading headlines and reporting of politicians’ lies without context.

Finally, social media companies such as Meta, YouTube and TikTok must do more. Their current approaches to combating misinformation, based on professional fact-checking, largely turn a blind eye to misinforming content that doesn't fit the “fake news” mold—and thus miss most of the problem. Platforms often exempt politicians from fact-checking and deprioritize fact-checks on posts from mainstream sources. But this content is precisely what has huge reach and therefore the greatest potential for harm—and thus is more important to tackle than relatively low exposure “fake news.” Interventions must shift to reflect this reality. For example, common media literacy approaches that combat misinformation by emphasizing source credibility may backfire when misleading content comes from trusted sources.

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’

“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable

www.scientificamerican.com

I can't sum up information like this in a sentence or two. You're going to have read the article.

The following (factual?) statement:

Yet the reality is there will almost never be universal agreement about what is and is not misinformation.

makes the task (mission?) of ‘dealing with’ (censoring?) misinformation virtually impossible.

 

[eohrnberger]

The following (factual?) statement:



makes the task (mission?) of ‘dealing with’ (censoring?) misinformation virtually impossible.

Agreed.

Yet, the Biden / Harris administration went and created their 'Ministry of Truth', dressing it up as 'Disinformation Governance Board' for exactly 'what is and is not misinformation', at least according to them.

Good God, these people are just so clueless and so single minded in their pursuit of political power and control over people.

 

[aociswundumho]

The whole article is just a call for mass censorship. In the end, in order to combat "misinformation" someone or some group has to be the final arbiter of truth.

 

[Mach]

The whole article is just a call for mass censorship. In the end, in order to combat "misinformation" someone or some group has to be the final arbiter of truth.

And how is that different from any significantly complex and productive human endeavor?
It's not.

To think, is to arbitrate the truth...you do it by default as part of your animal brain's physical composition.

 

[j brown's body]

How about the impact of MSM declining to make Trump's call to violence front page news?

 

[aociswundumho]

And how is that different from any significantly complex and productive human endeavor?

There is nothing "productive" about mass censorship.

 

[Mach]

There is nothing "productive" about mass censorship.

You missed the point, but that's false too.

It's done every day, all day, in nearly ever large human organized effort throughout history and around the world.
They are censoring porn and hate speech, curse words and the like all day every day in most every outlet, it's "productive".

Again:
How is that different from any significantly complex and productive human endeavor?

It's not. Hospitals don't allow doctors to give a treatment plan they found on the internet started by Q-anon, do they?
They censor that. Most censor this by training, and by using sources that are credible to begin with (other physician organizations, publications, etc.)

Social media is new, and moved too fast for our dinosaur, largely ignorant legislators to figure this out. They harmed millions...maybe a generation, by allowing really bad shit to happen, and not just politics.
They failed us because they did not limit it.

Limits are essential to every complex human endeavor, and are generally considered useful and healthy when used appropriately.
We limit what we eat, how much we eat, how much we goof off vs work, etc., etc., etc.

 

[aociswundumho]

Hospitals don't allow doctors to give a treatment plan they found on the internet started by Q-anon, do they?

For decades and decades doctors were not permitted to prescribe marijuana to patients who would have benefitted from it, because the government is the final arbiter of truth when it comes to drugs. In 1970, your beloved federal government determined that marijuana was highly addictive, is not safe, and has no medical use for any treatment. That is still the official position today, 54 years later.

That's a real-world example of the harm caused by your belief that "government is always right".

Social media is new, and moved too fast for our dinosaur, largely ignorant legislators to figure this out. They harmed millions...maybe a generation, by allowing really bad shit to happen, and not just politics.

Why don't you just admit that you support government censorship?

I swear, leftists are the only group who are embarrassed about their own political positions.

 

[Roadvirus]

From Scientific American:

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’
“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable
[W]hile news outlets have spilled a great deal of ink reporting on “fake news,” little has been done to reflect on their own role in promoting misbelief. Journalists must internalize the fact that their own reach is far greater than that of the hoax outlets they frequently criticize—and thus their responsibility is much larger. Unintentional missteps—like misleading reporting about a Gaza hospital explosion and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—from mainstream media have vastly more impact than a torrent of largely unseen falsehoods from “fake news” outlets. Even though the pressure to chase clicks and ratings is intense, journalists must maintain vigilance against misleading headlines and reporting of politicians’ lies without context.

Finally, social media companies such as Meta, YouTube and TikTok must do more. Their current approaches to combating misinformation, based on professional fact-checking, largely turn a blind eye to misinforming content that doesn't fit the “fake news” mold—and thus miss most of the problem. Platforms often exempt politicians from fact-checking and deprioritize fact-checks on posts from mainstream sources. But this content is precisely what has huge reach and therefore the greatest potential for harm—and thus is more important to tackle than relatively low exposure “fake news.” Interventions must shift to reflect this reality. For example, common media literacy approaches that combat misinformation by emphasizing source credibility may backfire when misleading content comes from trusted sources.

Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’

“Fake news”-style misinformation is only a fraction of what deceives voters. Fighting misinformation will require holding political elites and mainstream media accountable

www.scientificamerican.com

I can't sum up information like this in a sentence or two. You're going to have read the article.

John Kerry probably wishes we could do away with the 1st Amendment to solve the "fake news/misinformation" problem.

"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc. But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence," Kerry said.

John Kerry calls the First Amendment a 'major block' to stopping 'disinformation'

Former Secretary of State John Kerry lamented the First Amendment allowing disinformation on climate change to flourish on a recent World Economic Forum panel.

www.foxnews.com

Oh that pesky "rights" shit.
We dodged a bullet with this moron.

 

[bomberfox]

Mh i think the “mostly unseen” propaganda from “fake news outlets” part is bullshit. Its very much seen, its why you will see big money pour into “independent” outlets.

 

[Mach]

For decades and decades doctors were not permitted to prescribe marijuana to patients who would have benefitted from it, because the government is the final arbiter of truth when it comes to drugs. In 1970, your beloved federal government determined that marijuana was highly addictive, is not safe, and has no medical use for any treatment. That is still the official position today, 54 years later.

So you agree censorship is part of every large human organization, company, etc.?

Strange way of agreeing...

That's a real-world example of the harm caused by your belief that "government is always right".

You really don't understand what cherry picking is? Really, at your age? I find that hard to believe, but I will accept that you don't if that's true.

Why don't you just admit that you support government censorship?

I'm telling you censorship is the norm, and is built into nearly every society, group, corporation, etc., in modern America and around the world.
Judicious use of it is absolutely essential, likely always will be.

I swear, leftists are the only group who are embarrassed about their own political positions.

Who are you referring to? I'm not embarrassed about my position, are you embarrassed by yours?
You seem to be wrong, and can't really muster a defense, but that's OK, you do you.

 

[OrphanSlug]

makes the task (mission?) of ‘dealing with’ (censoring?) misinformation virtually impossible.

Therein lies the rub, even a mild attempt at trying to empower some organization of some authority to determine information from misinformation the more we tread into 1st Amendment Constitutional implications.

On a technical level some lies and misinformation is by case law Constitutionally protected, not all but some, which creates even more muddy conditions in some authority telling others what is and is not truth for whatever subject. Worse, what becomes not Constitutionally protected is determined case by case well after the fact.

While I agree with others that the majority of the nation could not spot misinformation to save their lives, just like most could not point on a map and identify the state they are standing in, we have a huge challenge in appealing to any authority, public or private or whatever, to determine what is misinformation.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The whole article is just a call for mass censorship. In the end, in order to combat "misinformation" someone or some group has to be the final arbiter of truth.

No, it's not. It's a call to keep misleading information in check. Trump lies every. single. time. his moth opens. The GQP does the same thing. Their lies have caused massive damage to this country and that needs to stop.

Each time Trump's lies cause harm or damage, he needs to be hit with a felony charge. Same thing for each of the scumbags at Faux.

 

[aociswundumho]

You really don't understand what cherry picking is?

There are endless examples. I could have used the Iraq war, the food pyramid, or the statements made by the government during covid. This is the entity you want to be the final arbiter of truth.

Judicious use of it is absolutely essential, likely always will be.

Do you believe government censorship is consistent with the first amendment?

Please don't mention fires and theaters. The context is so-called "misinformation" concerning any number of subjects.

Who are you referring to? I'm not embarrassed about my position,

Then just admit that you support government censorship.

 

[Mach]

There are endless examples. I could have used the Iraq war, the food pyramid, or the statements made by the government during covid. This is the entity you want to be the final arbiter of truth.

You're not making any sense. Government was corrected on Iraq, journalism, interviews, records obtained, etc. It was not final.
Government corrected regularly on Covid, it was a novel virus, novel situation in modern history, and public health officials and scientists did a tremendous job.
Trump, not so much.
You do know that any good system, in addition to censorship (in the general sense), also makes errors, and has to correct for errors too right?

Do you believe government censorship is consistent with the first amendment?

I believe 1A has limits, should have limits, and should probably be updated to spell those limits out to avoid the abuse that's rampant now, and will only get worse.

Please don't mention fires and theaters. The context is so-called "misinformation" concerning any number of subjects.

You brought it up...are you saying yelling fire is not misinformation if there is no fire? this is curious.

Then just admit that you support government censorship.

I've been telling you that the past 4 or so posts, that not only do I support that, but in all significantly large, importation human endeavors, generally, will censor information, and should.

Are you not reading my posts?

To me, it's obvious. As we grow, as time progresses, we discover new ways to ruin our lives, and when they are shown to be a significant problem, we correct for them.
Same as you do at home, same as any college does, as any hospital, as any good corporation, as any good organization...everyone is doing it.

If not censoring something is a bigger problem than it's worth, then carving that thing out and seeing how it plays it, is workable to me, seems normal.
We censor science, we censor language, we censor personal attacks too...every day, all day, for good reason.

There is always a line. where that line is, is the only question.

 

[aociswundumho]

You're not making any sense. Government was corrected on Iraq, journalism, interviews, records obtained, etc. It was not final.

I should think you'll accept NPR as a source.

I believe 1A has limits, should have limits, and should probably be updated to spell those limits out to avoid the abuse that's rampant now, and will only get worse.

Where are they? Here's the text:

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.[

Explain how you interpret those words to mean congress may censor free speech.

 

[weaver2]

The whole article is just a call for mass censorship. In the end, in order to combat "misinformation" someone or some group has to be the final arbiter of truth.

That sounds like just another name for censorship.

 

[aociswundumho]

That sounds like just another name for censorship.

That's right.

 

[Phys251]

The whole article is just a call for mass censorship. In the end, in order to combat "misinformation" someone or some group has to be the final arbiter of truth.

The person with the sexist username wants disinformation to spread.

 

[eohrnberger]

Therein lies the rub, even a mild attempt at trying to empower some organization of some authority to determine information from misinformation the more we tread into 1st Amendment Constitutional implications.

Agreed.

On a technical level some lies and misinformation is by case law Constitutionally protected, not all but some, which creates even more muddy conditions in some authority telling others what is and is not truth for whatever subject. Worse, what becomes not Constitutionally protected is determined case by case well after the fact.

Quite true. Often so much 'well after the fact' as to be useless in correcting the already adopted lies and misinformation. ‘A Lie Is Halfway Round the World Before the Truth Has Got Its Boots On’ as it were.

While I agree with others that the majority of the nation could not spot misinformation to save their lives,

This might very well be another application of 'bigotry of low expectations', my thinking being that the first response most anyone whom I know receiving outlandish or sensational news report is one of skepticism and disbelief, not adopting it. YMMV.

Specific to my comment in this post above this one, people appear to be more trending to a 'wait and see', 'wait for the other 1/2 of the story to come out', at least it seems this way to me.

just like most could not point on a map and identify the state they are standing in, we have a huge challenge in appealing to any authority, public or private or whatever, to determine what is misinformation.

Which segment of the electorate on the political spectrum more typically responds with this 'appeal to authority' do you think?