[intended]

We aren’t talking about something as basic as truth and untruth.

This is Integer and float vs malformed code.

Misinformation is code. It’s designed to specifically take advantage of gaps in our society and spread in such a way that makes it harder to challenge it.

[bigbluedots]

In a free society, people must be allowed the ability to discern for themselves which information is useful, true, or otherwise. We do not need a state or its proxies to tell us which information is correct.

[wwweston]

> people must be allowed the ability to discern for themselves which information is useful

Including people who run institutions like Google.

If they can be compelled to disseminate content they think of as irresponsible, so can you.

[fvdessen]

Google has a monopoly on searching for information, which makes it as different to me as a nuclear bomb is to a butterknife. They need to play by different rules

[wwweston]

Not only does Google not hold a true monopoly on search (they hold top mindshare, but there are several other easily available search engines one of which I use frequently), this particular brouhaha is about hosting, not search, on which they don't hold anything that could even be reasonably confused with a monopoly.

[unyttigfjelltol]

It's even more alarming that the host of my data is actively scanning those 1s and 0s for signs of deviation from truth and sending those 1s and 0s it views as untruths down a memory hole. I mean, why stop there, why not just correct the untruths? Flip a few 1s here that should be 0s. This strikes at the core value proposition of tech and who is who is boss of what data.

[concordDance]

One can agree they should not be compelled while ALSO thinking it would be much better for society that they stop censoring. Just because setting up an institution to compel would be worse than the censorship we're trying to fix doesn't mean the censorship is good.

[unethical_ban]

That's a nice fantasy. People don't get enlightened by banging rocks to start fires for 18 years then becoming a philosopher.

The art of thinking critically and using logic takes training, and far too many people don't seem to have those skills, due to an inadequate education system in the United States.

Free people should be "allowed" to listen to, and say, what they want. I don't even think Tucker Carlson should be silenced by the government, no matter how much better I think society would be without him on the air.

I think there is a space for content to be labelled as "bullshit" by the people hosting it. Youtube labeling anti-vax lies as "misinformation", the FCC disallowing Fox from using the term "News" on its marquee during their "Four Hours of Hate" from 5-9pm.

Just as fast food is allowed to be sold to people, but they're required to disclose nutrition data - people should be allowed to listen to and spout bullshit, but it should be labeled.

[sofixa]

That's so naïve.. If only sufficient amounts of people were capable of discerning for themselves which information is useful, true, etc.

The rise of batshit crazy and easily demonstrably false conspiracy theories like Qanon, flat earthers, 5G, Covid is fake/a Chinese bioweapon/etc. Pizzagate, what have you, and clearly empty populist politicians and political movements across the world show that way too much people struggle with that. And the choices they make impact all of us.

I honestly don't think there's a solution for this. Any authority on "truth" will be abused, but what we have now doesn't work either.

[jasonzemos]

Yes we do. It is only more important that the state is first correct, and doesn't persecute when either it or you are not.

[concordDance]

Well yes, if we had a perfect Oracle of Truth we wouldn't need the freedom to discuss and find out the truth. We don't and governments not only do not have such an Oracle, they cannot have such an Oracle due to the pressures on governments and the people that make them up preventing them from being unbiased (e.g. the tendencies for institutions such as government components to grow larger, defend their power and push to continue to exist).

[cnhajzwgz]

Wielding the baton of "misinformation", or in general, fear of falsehood/insecurity etc, to whack those who the ruling class disagrees with is also code designed to specifically take advantage of the gaps in a healthy bureaucracy and seize control over it in such a way that makes it hard to challenge it.

[inglor_cz]

"Misinformation is code. It’s designed to specifically take advantage of gaps in our society and spread in such a way that makes it harder to challenge it."

Are you aware that ideas like abolition of slavery, civil rights or acceptance of gays had to spread precisely in the same way, through gaps in the contemporary societies that made harder to challenge them, often because open declaration of such ideas would mean major trouble for the speakers?

Do you think that our current society is perfect in this regard and thus can suppress further functionality of such mechanisms without adverse consequences down the line?

If not, better not touch the gaps.

[ibbibby]

No, this is bafflegab. You're creating what is at best a contrived, vague, and inaccurate metaphor to make a distinction without a difference between misinformation and falsehood, so that you will have a fig leaf to pretend that you are acting in an objective manner with clear delineations when banning information you don't like as "misinformation."

Except you won't be doing the banning, and it's not going to end well for any of us after you help to give the people who will be doing it the power they want with rationalizations like this.

[ironmagma]

Only for pretty creative definitions of misinformation. It could also be just, you know, wrong information.

[PixyMisa]

Or indeed, correct information that contradicts an officially recognised position.

[overgard]

People can figure out the truth, and if they can't, we have bigger problems. I'd like to live in a world of common sense vs "elite" judgements

The amazing thing about these super political fights is like 90% of people are on the sidelines going "what's wrong with both of you?" The people that always end up looking like idiots are the idealogues

[overdriventater]

You're proving ibbibby's point here

[narrator]

Who would ever oppose scientific socialism? It is scientific. Thus, rejection of science is unscientific and should be prohibited.

I call my organization the good people group. Who would oppose the good people group except the bad people group?