[elektrontamer]

Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information? Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. We know policing speech doesn't work, whoever does the policing introduces their own biases, this was clear as day with the hunter laptop story and how the goverment put pressure on social media companies to supress it.

[macintux]

> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.

If they’ve internalized/amplified it, they’ll believe the source, and disregard the contradictory information.

This has been well-established over the last, oh, 10 years. Facts are irrelevant if you can choose your own sources.

[the_optimist]

This “sounds smart” and I’m sure it circulates well in conversation. In practice, no. The point of “facts” is to identify useful truths that guide decisions. When some portion of the distribution of people identify misalignment, which is inevitable—not optional—then they will true up.

[macintux]

4 years on and a significant proportion of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Just how many years will it take for that to true up?

[tailrecursion]

I notice you don't make a definite claim that it wasn't stolen. You're annoyed by the fact others believe it was, based on what you feel is insufficient evidence, yes?

But if you can prove it wasn't, I'm interested

[ndsipa_pomu]

Surely the burden of proof is on those making a claim of election interference? Elections are designed to be reliable and there haven't been reports of previous elections being "stolen", so I would think that reasonable evidence should be provided if people want to push the idea that an election was interfered with.

[the_optimist]

There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. There is evidence gathering activity which supports or undermines, strengthening or weakening a hypothesis. Ideally, one dispositive form of evidence affirms or denies a hypothesis. It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud, but in any case, other claims are weak evidence.

[the_optimist]

It is absolutely fantastic that this assertion draws ire from those who have no substantial response. It is intended to poke you directly in the eyeballs. That crowd so often favors censorship to protect the same.

If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.

[nmz]

Your claim is not false, but not universally true either, the counter is alex jones, the flat earth movement, religion as well, you can spend nearly an infinity believing in lies. The human brain is quite malleable to lies.

[elektrontamer]

So what? People have the right to be wrong and ignorant. It's far better than having The Ministry of Tru... sorry I mean Disinformation Governance Board. Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually. For example consider the Iraq war, a war the american public was rushed into without the free flow of information, something you seem keen on, but now that the public has access to info the same republican base that was in support of the war now hates war hawks like john bolton.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually

Eventually, yes, but until it happens, bodies are piling up.

EDIT: Also, FWIW, the truth is often exposed nearly immediately, yet for some people, once they have chosen to believe the lie, they can't be convinced of the truth.

[nmz]

If all you believe are lies, what's the difference?

[2c2c2c]

80% of republicans believe 2020 was stolen.

[jkubicek]

don't worry, community notes on Twitter will fix this /s

[lupusreal]

Reddit's censorship surely will.

[thomaslord]

It's well established that adults who read incorrect information frequently don't find out it was wrong and become more skeptical of the source. Some people operate that way, but it's a small minority unfortunately.

In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information?

Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0]

Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets.

Speech has consequences.

> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.

...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this.

If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term.

Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

[elektrontamer]

Sorry but I'm not willing to live in an insane orwellian world just so your grandma gets her vaccine. It's her family's responsiblity to convince her and if she still refuses shes an adult she has the right to refuse treatment and vaccines.

As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences.

What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?

[Sohcahtoa82]

> Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose

You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.

I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.

Who gets to decide what is misinformation is an entirely different issue. But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation. Again, set aside the question of "Well, who decides what is misinformation?" and consider just the mere concept of it.

[elektrontamer]

> You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.

Tyranny is the only alternative to free speech. I just don't see it ending in any other way.

> I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.

Awesome! Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.

> But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation.

Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.

[hughesjj]

Tyrany is orthogonal to free speech. You can absolutely abuse free speech to enact tyranny -- hell just look at Weimar era Germany.

Absolutist free speech would allow you to publicly plot the assassination of whomever you wanted to, or permit insider trading, etc.

Speech is a tool. It's utility and morality depends on the weilder of it.

[elektrontamer]

Hmmm... I really wonder what the said tyrants did when they got into power? Oh that's right they imposed heavy restrictions on speech and all forms of media. And it's not like there was free speech before them, the Weimar republic tried banning them as well. It's almost like challenging ideas and defeating them on an intellectual level is far better than trying to supress them.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.

As long as misinformation is costing people's lives, I will make a big deal out of it.

I recognize that I am raising a stink about a problem without proposing a solution.

> Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.

It took us way too long to realize that we agree.

[tailrecursion]

> Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.

[seadan83]

Yes, but that correction doesn't reach everyone. Again thus, "speech has consequences"