[Spivak]

Wait no. That’s not how this works. There’s no determination of fact. It doesn’t matter whether what you said is true or false — this isn’t a rule against being wrong. It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people.

Like it’s literally the same ideas as fraud but applied to misinformation. If you believe that climate change is a hoax then you’re fine, tell the world. But if you make up a study and data “disproving” climate change and then circulate it in Facebook then you’re not.

[gizmondo]

Unless you have a mind-reading device, there is no way to be sure what somebody believes.

[claudiawerner]

> Unless you have a mind-reading device, there is no way to be sure what somebody believes.

In general, we are comfortable doing this in at least some contexts. The legal system in almost every case attempts to ascertain intention to satisfy the mens rea of a criminal act. They don't have mind reading devices, but they do have expert witnesses such as psychologists and doctors, and testimony.

[lurquer]

> It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people.

If one doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, yet publishes erudite webpages with the intent to mislead others (at least from his POV) into thinking it really happened, would that be a problem?

If yes, you are consistent, albeit a bit crazy.

If no, your rule reduces, once again, to a focus on the falsity of the communication as opposed to the writers intent.

[Spivak]

It would be a problem! I don’t think people would care as much because it’s the same as stealing a balloon on free balloon day but you still have a guilty mind and had the intent to deceive people regardless of your success at it.

It becomes a bigger issue if the evidence on the site is made up but I won’t assume that.