[ubernostrum]

Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow.

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?

[ringbugger]

I love this. Taking a politically charged topic and trying to prove something irrefutably false while trying to make a completely different point. Yes, of course that is misinformation.

Let's try it more neutral. Water is an aggregate state of carbon dioxide. Is this misinformation? Yes. Do I want social networks to be chemical teachers? No.