[speak_plainly]

The core of the problem lies not in facts failing to persuade, but in our obsession with trying to change minds.

We've developed systems to facilitate this. Parliamentary debate, for instance, was meant to force parties to justify their positions through public reasons, not private convictions. Religious institutions, too, have long shaped minds with varying degrees of success.

But attempts to reshape humanity, especially on a grand scale, have consistently produced devastating and unintended consequences.

We now live in an age where political expedience trumps truth; what matters is not whether something is right, but whether it plays well. The public is expected to absorb politicized half-truths while being shielded from the real issues....because complexity isn’t expedient. The current obsession with labeling ideas as “misinformation” or “disinformation” is a desperate, often incoherent attempt to control discourse, and it breeds more cynicism than clarity.

In the end, good ideas tend to survive, but not on any schedule we can manage. Trying to micromanage thought or the flow of information is not only futile, it’s unworthy of the very rationality we claim to protect.

[renox]

> Religious institutions, too, have long shaped minds with varying degrees of success.

Given that a huge portion of the world's population is religious (a quick google search say 84%), I'd say with a very high success.

[dgb23]

You say the misinformation label is counterproductive. But what if we cannot even agree on what the facts are? There's no productive discussion to be had. We cannot solve problems collaboratively when facts are ignored or denied.

[speak_plainly]

Disagreement about facts is not new and you're assuming too much about how truth operates in public discourse.

Obviously, facts matter but disagreement is rarely about facts themselves. What counts as 'fact' is often embedded in a web of assumptions, models, and values. A lot of what passes as fact are merely claims dressed up as indisputable but often laden with interpretation, ideology, or selective framing.

To say there's 'no productive discussion' unless facts are agreed upon is to misunderstand how knowledge and consensus actually work. History shows that productive discourse often begins in spite of disagreement over facts. Scientific progress, legal systems, and democratic deliberation rely not on perfect consensus but on procedures that tolerate disagreement and test claims over time.

Labeling something as 'misinformation' may feel like asserting the truth, but epistemologically it's simple a kind of speech act... one that can shut down inquiry rather than promote it. It assumes a finality that's likely not justified, and worse, it can become a tool of political expedience. This is especially dangerous when wielded by institutions that are pursuing their own interests, are fallible, or are compromised.

The path to truth is not paved with censorship and labeling. It's built through dialogue, humility, and robust mechanisms for testing competing claims. Dissent is not the enemy of truth, it's often the precondition.

[dgb23]

I agree with everything you've said one hundred percent.

However, I'm not talking about honest discussion, truth seeking and competing perspectives etc. But about literal dishonesty, actual lies and complete disregard of proof and data in order to achieve a goal (usually power or attention).

Like "no troops in Crimea", "Jewish space lasers" or "windmills cause cancer"...

There is a qualitative difference between honestly believing X versus constructing X in order to manipulate and deceive. It seems to be that the latter has become much more prevalent, aggressive and even automated in recent years in public discourse. That's what is meant by "misinformation".

I don't believe in systemically/institutionally policing speech (with exceptions like calling for violence, doxxing and similar). And I don't have a solution in mind. But it sure as hell is tiring, because it takes a lot more effort to deconstruct lies and misinformation than to spread them.

It's an honest question: Are the tools for honest public discourse even effective against this in the long term? Is that how we go forward?