[soundpuppy]

If we were to make an analogy between radiocative matter entering the body, and toxic information entering the mind, what metrics do we use to measure the dangerous effects of the information? How long it lasts or how deeply it can modify conscious/subconscious brain processes?

[rmdashrfstar]

There's no such thing as dangerous information, only truth and not truth.

[Lowkeyloki]

I disagree having read about people who work as content moderators for websites like YouTube. They frequently suffer from acute forms of PTSD having only passively consumed information. If information can cause PTSD, I would consider that information dangerous to one's mental health.

[godelski]

Not to mention simpler examples like the anti vax movement. Which has put not only individuals in danger, but whole populations. There's plenty of examples of information leading to harm.

(This comment is neither a recommendation for censorship nor a push for freedom is speech)

[Lowkeyloki]

That's true. I also thought of something like state secrets where a government agent might show up one day and make you disappear.

But that type of information is only indirectly dangerous. The actual danger is the government agent or your personal actions based on misinformation in the case of antivaxx.

I was thinking more in terms of information that is objectively dangerous. Just ingesting the information alone is enough to cause damage.

I was also reminded of an article I read recently about artists and animators who worked on the newest Mortal Kombat game suffering from PTSD due to the graphic nature of their art and the reference materials they had to use.

[godelski]

> I was thinking more in terms of information that is objectively dangerous. Just ingesting the information alone is enough to cause damage.

I think there are cases for that too. But it depends on your psychology. For example there are mathematicians who have studied infinities and gone insane. Others haven't. Probably other factors involved, but it helped push them over the edge.

[zaarn]

I would propose the unit of "Cuil". 1 Cuil is present when a piece of information causes permanent PTSD in 50% of the people viewing it within 1 week. 0.1 Cuil cause PTSD in 5% of the people viewing it and so forth. Measurements over 2 Cuil express timeframes shorter than 1 Week. So 100 Cuil would cause permanent PTSD symptoms within 8 hours.

Alternatively, you measure how long people remember the video vividly and express the danger as the half life of the information related to it's damage.

[soundpuppy]

Cuil idea!

[Kortaggio]

You may be interested in reading this paper from Nick Bostrom, where he outlines the dangers present in certain types of truthful information: https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf

[kadendogthing]

Glad someone else linked this! I tried submitting it to HN but it didn't gain much traction.

[jhayward]

> There's no such thing as dangerous information, only truth and not truth

Please submit some proof of this extra-ordinary claim. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary. And we're not even yet talking about whether 'Truth' is a binary value.

[sircastor]

That's an over simplification. True information can be dangerous or not. Falsehoods can be harmless or not. Context has a significant impact on how the information is treated and the ramifications that come from it.

[marcinzm]

Tell that to a gay man in Iran who is outed among many other examples.

[stordoff]

I feel like many of these are examples of that what people do with the information is dangerous, not that the information _itself_ is dangerous. Perhaps a slight difference, but one that I think exists.

I think people suffering PTSD is a better example of how information can be dangerous.

[goatlover]

Game of Thrones analogy: an important character being told they are the true heir to the throne results in another character burning down a city. Information can be dangerous depending on the context. Also in the show, The heir’s father in the story kept the information secret to protect that persons life.

[kadendogthing]

>There's no such thing as dangerous information

There most certainly is. We actively codify for it in most societies in a myriad of ways. See: Nuclear technology secrets, CDC protocols, and the fact that things like PTSD exist.

And to your underlying point: stop assuming everyone is rational or will act in the best interests of society with information. There is plenty of information available to you to negate that assumption.

[goatlover]

Such as people who would gladly steal your identity for financial gain.

[dasil003]

There's a difference between facts and information.