Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #140]

Nope, there are always outliers. Do you deny the rest of what I said?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #140]

Nope, there are always outliers. Do you deny the rest of what I said?

There aren't always outliers. This exception is quite important, no? It means there aren't just two biological genders. But gender is more than "wedding tackle." While you seem to want it to be simply binary, it isn't, and you'd do yourself a service to see the whole picture of gender, sexuality, etc.
Questions:
1. Is it important to you that you are right?
2. If not:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ot-binary/
https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-ge ... der-prison
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139786/

There are many other references I can bring up, like people who have two X Chromosomes but look male (have penises), and people who have an X&Y but look biologically like women. Then there are people with two YY...
The fact is, it isn't binary - at some point, you have to recognize the outliers aren't outliers, but the norm.

[Purple Knight]

Start with yelling "fire!" In a theater. Doing so falsely could endanger lives.
Now, can I tell your 5 year old son to drink battery acid to cure his cold?
Can I tell people not to take their meds because the government uses it to track you?
Can I lie about magical cures for Covid? Should I be able to?

Yes, if you're big pharma. They have liability indemnity for the covid vaccines.

Now, I'm only most of the way against you here. Where you have a point is that lying sometimes causes harm. And if we could determine with 100% certainty that it's a lie, so be it, but it suffers from the death penalty fallacy because if we punish people for lying, and it turns out they were telling the truth, then what?

For example, what if the conspiracy nuts were right, and covid vaccines were hurting people? Once this comes out, we can't undo the punishment. Once we say, this person is a liar, they are a liar for life and their life is over. We can and maybe even should outlaw such speech, but only if we can punish people without the stigma. Put them in jail fine, we think it saves lives, but unless it's done with the understanding (from all of society) that this is the government's best guess as to what will save lives and not a godly statement of fact with which to ruin someone and forever label them a liar even if contradictory facts turn up later, then you can't do it.

Also, if vaccines are mandatory anyway, there's no reason to stop people from speaking against it. If it's illegal to drink battery acid, Timmy knows he shouldn't be doing it. And if the theatre can kick you out for being loud, there's no reason for the government to step in and make it illegal to yell.

Yes, this is more tyranny. But by addressing actions and not words, you can have the same effect and speech can always be free. If someone is deciding from the top which things are lies and which things aren't, we'll lose the ability to tell the truth.

And frankly, people who use their brains and can sort fact from fiction and gossip, should have a survival advantage. And it's not, oh, let's just give everyone that advantage by deciding for them, it's robbing the prescient to provide some extra advantage to the gullible and foolhardy, in the case that the people at the top deciding for everyone are wrong.

Most of the time, the experts will be right. But when they are wrong and scrub "misinformation" that the high end would use properly to avoid the pitfall the crowd swallowed, they're killing that genius to save Battery Timmy (because that's where their policy did save a life).

The genius can be smarter than the guy at the top deciding what's misinformation and what's not. And he can use that to save his own life. There will be these cases sometimes.

I don't think redistribution is impermissible. But not lives. You can't redistribute lives. (Especially when this robs the populace of the like, final way intelligence selection proceeds positively: When the masses are entirely duped. As the population gets stupider, faster, more people are going to die to Timmy-like accidents anyway.)

[Purple Knight]

There is nothing pro-science in saying that men can be women and women can be men. There are biological males and biological females. All else is lifestyle choice or role play.

I think you're wrong. But I will defend to the death your right to be wrong, and I'm probably the last person in the whole world who will do so.

(I also think it's a definitional issue and while the huge support has changed the accepted definition and is thus the truth - because it is a purely definitional issue - having a different definition is not a sin or depriving anyone of rights. I can think you're a monkey or even a fish and it does not hurt you. I can even have a working definition of "fish" as the set of regulars on Debating Christianity without the letter O in their names, and it might be functional for a specific purpose and sort of a crime to take it away from me on the basis that you don't identify as a fish. In fact, the probably most hurtful instance of other-defining in recent history is when women who weren't runway models were other-defined as fat and ugly, is an instance nobody ever said should be illegal and nobody ever said violated anyone's rights. And I happen to agree. I like runway models, or even thinner. I play the 13-16BMI range. 18 is considered healthy but to me it's retch-inducing. But those 110lb fat butts didn't identify as fat, and never tried to take away my ability to identify them as that. They said, it's hurtful, maybe you shouldn't. And I agree it's hurtful. But too bad that's my definition and nobody ever said I was violating rights. So yeah. I'm on your side here.)

[boatsnguitars]

Start with yelling "fire!" In a theater. Doing so falsely could endanger lives.
Now, can I tell your 5 year old son to drink battery acid to cure his cold?
Can I tell people not to take their meds because the government uses it to track you?
Can I lie about magical cures for Covid? Should I be able to?

Yes, if you're big pharma. They have liability indemnity for the covid vaccines.

I think we need to, as a society, understand the importance of relaxing certain bureaucratic rules in order to produce life saving medication in pandemics.
It doesn't mean they are inherently intending to be unsafe.
While I accept that "Big Pharma" has profit motives, they have also done a lot of good, and will continue to do so. Doing something profoundly evil in a pandemic would ultimately undercut any confidnce they have eared this far.
(Meanwhile, I will remind people that while "Big Pharma" is a thing, so is "Anti-Big Pharma" who tries to make money off of Big Pharma's missteps, or "Big Alternative" which sells unregulated drugs (called "herbal supplements" or whatever - they are still drugs (chemicals to affect the body).)

Now, I'm only most of the way against you here. Where you have a point is that lying sometimes causes harm. And if we could determine with 100% certainty that it's a lie, so be it, but it suffers from the death penalty fallacy because if we punish people for lying, and it turns out they were telling the truth, then what?

I'm against the death penalty for this reason, but, if we did find that a person purposely led millions to take something that they knew would lead to the deaths of children, say, should that be allowed? Even if they claimed they believed otherwise?

Supplement salesmen do this regularly. They sell products that are unregulated (because the GOP doesn't like regs), and are known to destroy livers. People die because of their lies, but the government is slow to stop them - and they know this, so they act fast within the loopholes.
What do we do, as a society? Accept it?
https://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/toxic-l ... 0or%20kava.

For example, what if the conspiracy nuts were right, and covid vaccines were hurting people? Once this comes out, we can't undo the punishment. Once we say, this person is a liar, they are a liar for life and their life is over. We can and maybe even should outlaw such speech, but only if we can punish people without the stigma. Put them in jail fine, we think it saves lives, but unless it's done with the understanding (from all of society) that this is the government's best guess as to what will save lives and not a godly statement of fact with which to ruin someone and forever label them a liar even if contradictory facts turn up later, then you can't do it.

What if?

Also, if vaccines are mandatory anyway, there's no reason to stop people from speaking against it. If it's illegal to drink battery acid, Timmy knows he shouldn't be doing it. And if the theatre can kick you out for being loud, there's no reason for the government to step in and make it illegal to yell.

I think I care more for people than you do. And I think we, as a society, and as the next generation, have an obligation to improve the status quo. How that's done is a conversation. I agree, some people will do illegal things, but we don't make laws for the sole purpose of stopping everyone, just protecting most of us.
If we don't have laws against, for example, attempted murder, it would be hard to live in a community where people come close to killing everyone all the time.

I'm a Liberal: I believe the Government not only has the obligation to protect us, but that we are obligated to support the government to protect us since the government is the last line of defense (besides us individually researching and planning for every eventuality - like if oreos secretly put asbestos in their cream filling, or the paper plant down the road is pumping dioxins into our local water supply, etc..)

And, it depends what Timmy is yelling. If he's yelling "She has a bomb on her and she intends to blow everyone up!" while you are out to dinner with your daughter, you may feel a little miffed that the "Good Samaritan" guns her down.

In the court case, you might be even more miffed that there was no law against it, so, ..... next case.....

Even more miffed that, since there was no law against it, another person did it to your wife.

Then a few years later to you...

Yes, this is more tyranny. But by addressing actions and not words, you can have the same effect and speech can always be free. If someone is deciding from the top which things are lies and which things aren't, we'll lose the ability to tell the truth.

I agree actions are incredibly important, but we know that - for example - attempted murder, even if not carried out, is a life changing and emotionally damaging thing. To know that someone planned to kill you and your family, but the only thing that stopped them was Officer Hamilton who overheard a random conversation. But, you still don't know if you are marked for murder. That's not a good society. Not to me.

And frankly, people who use their brains and can sort fact from fiction and gossip, should have a survival advantage. And it's not, oh, let's just give everyone that advantage by deciding for them, it's robbing the prescient to provide some extra advantage to the gullible and foolhardy, in the case that the people at the top deciding for everyone are wrong.

I know your example holds true for many things, but not for all things. It's the exceptions that I'm worried about.

Most of the time, the experts will be right. But when they are wrong and scrub "misinformation" that the high end would use properly to avoid the pitfall the crowd swallowed, they're killing that genius to save Battery Timmy (because that's where their policy did save a life).

A little too conspiracy theory for me.

I only heard: "Most of the time, the experts will be right."

The genius can be smarter than the guy at the top deciding what's misinformation and what's not. And he can use that to save his own life. There will be these cases sometimes.

I lost you.

I don't think redistribution is impermissible. But not lives. You can't redistribute lives. (Especially when this robs the populace of the like, final way intelligence selection proceeds positively: When the masses are entirely duped. As the population gets stupider, faster, more people are going to die to Timmy-like accidents anyway.)

Yeah, I lost ya.

[brunumb]

There is nothing pro-science in saying that men can be women and women can be men. There are biological males and biological females. All else is lifestyle choice or role play.

I think you're wrong. But I will defend to the death your right to be wrong, and I'm probably the last person in the whole world who will do so.

(I also think it's a definitional issue and while the huge support has changed the accepted definition and is thus the truth - because it is a purely definitional issue - having a different definition is not a sin or depriving anyone of rights.

Sex is not an issue of definition. Millions of years of evolution has led to human beings that reproduce sexually through the union of male and female gametes. Self identification cannot change that. If people want to redefine the meanings of man and woman inventing a plethora of genders, so be it. They are free to live their lives according to what they have chosen. In the end that is still simply role play. If those people wish to reproduce then they will have to resort to the inescapable truth that biological sex is all that matters. Changing sexual identity is impossible. One can only change the image that one presents to society.

[brunumb]

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #140]

Nope, there are always outliers. Do you deny the rest of what I said?

There aren't always outliers. This exception is quite important, no? It means there aren't just two biological genders. But gender is more than "wedding tackle." While you seem to want it to be simply binary, it isn't, and you'd do yourself a service to see the whole picture of gender, sexuality, etc.
Questions:
1. Is it important to you that you are right?
2. If not:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ot-binary/
https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-ge ... der-prison
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139786/

There are many other references I can bring up, like people who have two X Chromosomes but look male (have penises), and people who have an X&Y but look biologically like women. Then there are people with two YY...
The fact is, it isn't binary - at some point, you have to recognize the outliers aren't outliers, but the norm.

Some of that is addressed in the discussion in Post #147 (Maybe start at the 20 minute mark).

[Purple Knight]

Sex is not an issue of definition. Millions of years of evolution has led to human beings that reproduce sexually through the union of male and female gametes. Self identification cannot change that.

This is one scheme of definition. You're describing something real, especially when it comes to reproduction. The answer to whether that fits the current accepted definition of "man" and "woman" is no. That definition has been changed. And I think it's a disservice to that something real you're describing, because there is no longer any way to describe or reference it without being intolerant and incorrect. But I don't control the fact that language equals the usage of language, so the correct definitions are a majority-rules affair.

If I did control language, I would either give you different words to describe that real thing, or say that your usage remains also a correct one until such time as a new word catches on to describe that thing. I wouldn't let the majority simply define things out of existence. But... I don't control language. This is another point in favour of everyone just voting me god, because I would be fair to everyone, and I don't give a flying back half of a rat whether anybody likes that or whether it's popular. (This is sort of tangent to the discussion about why God is deified, and if it's just turtles all the way down until you hit might-makes-right.)

It's a bit Brave-New-Worldy that the majority has caught on to the valid truth that they control definitions because they are the users of the language, and used that to simply define something out of existence. It still exists, but you can't talk about it without being technically incorrect, because the words that used to describe it have been appropriated for a new use, and the old use declared outdated and incorrect. If this happened top-down, it'd be tyranny. But... it's the People doing it.

[Purple Knight]

I think we need to, as a society, understand the importance of relaxing certain bureaucratic rules in order to produce life saving medication in pandemics.

The implication is that the rule shouldn't exist anyway, because it's bureaucratic nonsense. By all means, remove civil law. I prefer a world where you're only doing something punishable if you're breaking a law you have a way to know about before you take the action.

But people need to be equal. This isn't equal. If Sally-Sue-You can come sniffing for wrongdoing at my house, "slip" on my floor, and sue me, big pharma needs to take that hit too.

I'm against the death penalty for this reason, but, if we did find that a person purposely led millions to take something that they knew would lead to the deaths of children, say, should that be allowed? Even if they claimed they believed otherwise?

You're asking if lying should be allowed like that's an easy question. If we could read minds and tell what's on purpose, sure, bring Psi-Corps and I'll say punish them. Since you or I could be as easily caught for something we said that turned out to be false (not even really false, but false in the minds of those prosecuting us) and then because they can't read minds, and it looks like we did it on purpose, I think letting people just be allowed to lie is the safer bet. I pretty much don't put anything in my body except food, because I know people do lie, and I know it's a risk.

The only alternative I see is that they can still lie, because whatever hurdles they need to jump to "prove" that their poison doesn't shank peoples' livers and kidneys, they'll just pay for the stamp, because they have lobbyists. And we won't be able to do that and we'll get caught when we told the truth. In a better system where the government has control, not lobbyists, it depends on how much I trust the government. In this money = everything system where people just buy policy and exception, it's a really bad idea.

I think I care more for people than you do. And I think we, as a society, and as the next generation, have an obligation to improve the status quo. How that's done is a conversation. I agree, some people will do illegal things, but we don't make laws for the sole purpose of stopping everyone, just protecting most of us.
If we don't have laws against, for example, attempted murder, it would be hard to live in a community where people come close to killing everyone all the time.

My point was that if you want to stop Timmy from drinking battery acid, make it illegal and ignore the gum-flapper saying you should. Same effect. Even if you make speech illegal, people can say things anyway. So all you've done is add distance between the law, Timmy, and the thing you don't want him to do. Timmy might know the law and assume that battery-acid-pusher must not be breaking it, so it's safe. But if you just criminalise drinking battery acid, if Timmy knows the law, he won't do it.

I'm a Liberal: I believe the Government not only has the obligation to protect us, but that we are obligated to support the government to protect us since the government is the last line of defense (besides us individually researching and planning for every eventuality - like if oreos secretly put asbestos in their cream filling, or the paper plant down the road is pumping dioxins into our local water supply, etc..)

And I can disagree what protects us, and government is not a god, so it can be wrong and I can be right.

And, it depends what Timmy is yelling. If he's yelling "She has a bomb on her and she intends to blow everyone up!" while you are out to dinner with your daughter, you may feel a little miffed that the "Good Samaritan" guns her down.

In the court case, you might be even more miffed that there was no law against it, so, ..... next case.....

Even more miffed that, since there was no law against it, another person did it to your wife.

If someone kills someone else, they're in the wrong. I don't trust random people yelling about bombs to the point I'd kill someone on nothing more than the word of a stranger. Good Samaritan shouldn't, either. You just argued for laws against attempted murder. If the screamer intends to murder my family with another person's bullet, already covered, right? You just have to prove intent, and that's hard.

Most of the time, the experts will be right. But when they are wrong and scrub "misinformation" that the high end would use properly to avoid the pitfall the crowd swallowed, they're killing that genius to save Battery Timmy (because that's where their policy did save a life).

A little too conspiracy theory for me.

I only heard: "Most of the time, the experts will be right."

The genius can be smarter than the guy at the top deciding what's misinformation and what's not. And he can use that to save his own life. There will be these cases sometimes.

I lost you.

I don't think redistribution is impermissible. But not lives. You can't redistribute lives. (Especially when this robs the populace of the like, final way intelligence selection proceeds positively: When the masses are entirely duped. As the population gets stupider, faster, more people are going to die to Timmy-like accidents anyway.)

Yeah, I lost ya.

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that it's possible for a rando who is very intelligent to be right and an expert to be wrong. Experts are not gods. These are outlier cases but they consistently happen. Thalidomide, for example. You can't deprive him of his right to inform himself and save his own life. You can't decide what is misinformation and what isn't, because when you are wrong, which you will be sometimes, you're taking lives.