| If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping". Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship. Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination. Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial. That said, it can be a problem in other parts of the world. So what should be the reference here? You aren't even able to develop a theory about the damage of misinformation that would withstand scientific scrutiny. Maybe only because of lacking data than there not being a correlation, but still. So in the end I would conclude you only want to censor things you do not like. If you are more certain about your point of view and are able to articulate it, maybe more people will believe you. |
Earlier today I saw a thread of tweets criticizing a media figure for promoting the claim that Chelsea Clinton is married to a nephew of George Soros.
This is a relatively easy claim to check; the identity of Chelsea Clinton's husband is not a secret, and Soros' family tree is also known. Her husband is not, in fact, a nephew of George Soros.
Do you believe it is correct, then, to identify a tweet claiming "Chelsea Clinton is married to George Soros' nephew" as "misinformation"? Or would you, in a sense of charitable benevolence to the shifting nature of truth, want to hold off, just in case tomorrow she wakes up, decides she's unhappy, and files for divorce so that she can actually go marry a Soros nephew?