[thaumasiotes]

> it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are.

But the misinformation at issue is the idea that masks don't help, not the idea that they do help.

[notacoward]

That might be an weakness in phrasing, not actual misinformation. Masks are (arguably) not effective enough to justify the risk to supply for those with suspected/expected exposure, but the "enough" part is easily lost as information gets passed through many people who all mean well. Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking.

[thaumasiotes]

> Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking.

When someone's hypothetical sloppy wording changes their statement from true to false, it's fair to call that "misinformation". Telling people false things is spreading misinformation. Spreading misinformation with a pure heart is still spreading misinformation. The state of your heart doesn't matter.

[notacoward]

"State of your heart" is itself a misleading phrase, implying good vs. bad or benevolent vs. malevolent when the operative distinction is intentional vs. unintentional. See how easy it is to misrepresent without meaning to? That distinction is well established in law, and most definitely does matter if people are calling for things to be censored.

[thaumasiotes]

> The distinction between intentional vs. unintentional is well established in law

Sure, this matters for things like negligence standards. Why would it matter here?

> and most definitely does matter if people are calling for things to be censored

Um... again, why? People usually call for censorship based on the content of the speech.

> This has nothing to do with the "state of one's heart" (nice strawman there)

I think you've confused our positions. I'm the one arguing that whether you're spreading misinformation has nothing to do with the state of your heart. You're the one arguing that it does. The whole argument you're making here is "even though this is misinformation, I would rather call it something else, because I sympathize with the people spreading it".

[notacoward]

That's a heinous mischaracterization of my position. "Misinformation" has a common connotation of intent and malice, not mere accident or disagreement. You know, like when people deliberately misrepresent others' arguments because they think (mistakenly BTW) that it strengthens their own.

Because of that connotation, people call for misinformation to be eliminated from public platforms (i.e. censored). I think that's a terrible idea because we've already seen how that works out, every time Trump yells "fake news" and everyone rushes to suppress whatever got him angry. We don't need more of that.

You obviously feel differently and that by itself is OK, but the tactics you're using exemplify the problem and utterly destroy your own point. Please do continue without me.

[sgeisler]

If you make it sound as if they didn't help on an individual level that's clearly misinformation (intentional or unintentional). That due to shortages there might be adverse societal effects is another matter.

I'd argue that it's intentional misinformation so that people make potentially[1] suboptimal personal decisions that lead to better outcomes for society at large. But that's not their call to make. Give me the facts and I'll decide for myself. Otherwise prepare to be called out.

[1] That might or might not be the case depending on personal risk profiles and dependence on a functioning society. Also: a functioning society is worth little to a dead rational actor.