Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Daedalus X
Apprentice
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 12 times

Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #1

Post by 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/
Last edited by Daedalus X on Thu Oct 20, 2022 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6005
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6667 times
Been thanked: 3225 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #151

Post by brunumb »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 4:24 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 1:02 amSex 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.
I disagree. Male and female are incontrovertibly defined by science. People are trying to redefine man and woman to fit some psychological need to blur the distinction and that is the real disservice. If a male person thinks he is a woman then that indicates some mental disorder. Should society prevent that person living accordingly? Absolutely not. It is not possible for someone to be born in the wrong body. It is clearly possible for someone to feel that they were born in the wrong body. But there has to be some limit to how far society should be molded to validate their condition other than being a mental disorder. How many people with other mental disorders are given the same amount of validation and support as people with genuine gender dysphoria?

No doubt I will be branded as transphobic as that seems to be the standard retort today. I most definitely am not. Is it right to cause distress and discomfort to the majority of biological women as a trade off for giving a few transgender women an unnecessary privilege? Transgender activists are relying on a massive amount of disinformation while at the same time aggressively shutting down any opportunity for counter arguments to be presented. That is patently wrong. There is not as much at stake in sport as there is with the push to transition people at a very young age. It's easy to cut off body parts, but not so easy to return them when the unfortunate individuals realise that they made a mistake. I foresee a dismal future for many of the current young transitioners who did not fully appreciate what was in store, sterility, no sexual satisfaction and a lifetime on drugs and medication just to stay alive.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3554
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1148 times
Been thanked: 740 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #152

Post by Purple Knight »

brunumb wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 8:31 pmI disagree. Male and female are incontrovertibly defined by science.
If we all relinquished language to science, we would have a better and more objectively useful language, but case in point, a jellyfish is not a fish. Yet, a jellyfish is what it is called. Worse even than that, in Japanese they have birds, mammals, and fish, but anything that crawls is called mushi, which includes snakes, lizards, and all bugs. Taxonomically it's a nightmare, but, they can call what they like, what they like, and that is correct because that is the language.
brunumb wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 8:31 pmPeople are trying to redefine man and woman to fit some psychological need to blur the distinction and that is the real disservice. If a male person thinks he is a woman then that indicates some mental disorder. Should society prevent that person living accordingly? Absolutely not. It is not possible for someone to be born in the wrong body. It is clearly possible for someone to feel that they were born in the wrong body. But there has to be some limit to how far society should be molded to validate their condition other than being a mental disorder. How many people with other mental disorders are given the same amount of validation and support as people with genuine gender dysphoria?
Zero. They are told that the way they think is wrong and needs to be corrected. Someone with anorexia is not given the opportunity to say she identifies as being a 70lb smoking hot thin girl anyone will die to have sex with. She will be told she needs to be 100lbs, forcefed through a tube, and she will ultimately kill herself, and no one cares. Suicides from anorexics who are forced to be fat are just as real as suicides from trans people who are denied surgery. But in this case we don't allow people to self-identify, we don't allow people to say what will make them happy, we tell them what should make them happy and when it doesn't, we say, "Bye, Felicia," when they're deleted from life.

We let people smoke cigarettes even if it kills them when they're 70, at great expense to the rest of us, but half a year off your life expectancy for the wrong reason is unhealthy and a disorder and your brain is wrong and you need to be reeducated.

In my mind, the fact that we have the psychology industry at all, that gets to decide who is right in the head, and who is not... That's the problem. If I ran society, you hurt people, you pay, I don't care, I don't know, and I don't want to know why you did it. No crazy excuses. If you think you are crazy and you might hurt someone, fine, voluntary psychological treatment only. And affirmation-only for everybody. You tell your shrink, I don't want to be this way, you get helped to be a different way. No rightthink or wrongthink. And you quit the second you don't like it. If you run people over because you have roadrage, I take your license, period. I don't force you into counseling, even to get back your license. You got a problem? You deal with it. You don't deal with it, you face your own consequences. You drive drunk and kill people, your driver's license becomes the same as a minor, no alcohol for you, and a crime to buy it for you, and if you don't want that, you can not drive at all.

It would definitely help the cause in the minds of reasoning, consistent people such as those on this forum if everyone was given the same benefit of the doubt with regard to their own bodies, but it would not help the masses accept it. The masses can only see what is in the spotlight and if too many people jump on the bandwagon of "people who should get extra things" they grow resentful and buck the idea.
brunumb wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 8:31 pmNo doubt I will be branded as transphobic as that seems to be the standard retort today. I most definitely am not. Is it right to cause distress and discomfort to the majority of biological women as a trade off for giving a few transgender women an unnecessary privilege? Transgender activists are relying on a massive amount of disinformation while at the same time aggressively shutting down any opportunity for counter arguments to be presented. That is patently wrong.
At worst it's sophistry, and cancelling, which is just free speech. I am against cancel culture because I am on the Left. And if I were dictator I would protect your speech from cancelling. I would not see you banned from forums, fired from your job, or dragged through the mud and lied about by the press because you have a different opinion. I predicted this would happen in the 90's and I would point to the Simpsons episode Homer Badman, where the press edited a video of Homer eating a gummi Venus de Milo to make it look like he was molesting someone.

I would say, the potential is much worse than that, forget one seedy news channel shilling for viewership: Once that power is weaponised for the dominant view, which will seek the weaponisation, and there will be no law against it, you are not going to be happy. But conservatives said no no people can judge for themselves they will abandon the press if the press does that, free market blah blah blah the government shouldn't have power to restrain the free press, and now I'm laughing justly, because I didn't think the Left would be the dominant view being enforced.

I have no sympathy for anyone on the Right who believes in the free market at any expense being against cancel culture, until they change their ways and see that the government is not the only possible entity capable of misusing power.
brunumb wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 8:31 pmThere is not as much at stake in sport as there is with the push to transition people at a very young age. It's easy to cut off body parts, but not so easy to return them when the unfortunate individuals realise that they made a mistake. I foresee a dismal future for many of the current young transitioners who did not fully appreciate what was in store, sterility, no sexual satisfaction and a lifetime on drugs and medication just to stay alive.
Well, that's up to the individual. And it's sad for those who were wrong, which kids may very well be. Let them Darwin themselves off, but don't push them. I just told Boat that about Timmy drinking battery acid. If there's one person who is right, this really will make him happy, don't ban it and sacrifice him for Timmy because others are irresponsible. You can't scrub "misinformation" on the basis that you will usually be right, because when you are wrong, which will eventually happen, there will be those few people smarter than the experts who used that "misinformation" to save their own lives. You can't just trade them for Timmy. Lives don't work that way.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6005
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6667 times
Been thanked: 3225 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #153

Post by brunumb »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 6:36 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 8:31 pmI disagree. Male and female are incontrovertibly defined by science.
If we all relinquished language to science, we would have a better and more objectively useful language, but case in point, a jellyfish is not a fish. Yet, a jellyfish is what it is called. Worse even than that, in Japanese they have birds, mammals, and fish, but anything that crawls is called mushi, which includes snakes, lizards, and all bugs. Taxonomically it's a nightmare, but, they can call what they like, what they like, and that is correct because that is the language.new testament especially the gospel
You are now saying that scientific knowledge is at the mercy of language. We need language to convey knowledge and understanding. To allow it to be subverted by populist linguistics is surely destructive. Maleness and femaleness are not determined by the words we use for them, they are determined by biological facts. You cannot be one or the other simply by thinking it.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6005
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6667 times
Been thanked: 3225 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #154

Post by brunumb »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 6:36 pm Suicides from anorexics who are forced to be fat are just as real as suicides from trans people who are denied surgery. But in this case we don't allow people to self-identify, we don't allow people to say what will make them happy, we tell them what should make them happy and when it doesn't, we say, "Bye, Felicia," when they're deleted from life.
Suicide statistics regarding trans people are not that simple to analyse. It has been demonstrated that many so-called trans people have other deep-seated psychological problems. Children in particular are in no position to determine what will ultimately make them happy. "Please, please, please, let me have a dog, it will make me so happy". Afterwards, when reality sets in, the dog did no such thing. From what I have seen, this threat of suicides has been manipulated into an emotional argument and has little basis in reality. I'm sure big pharma and specialist medical institutions have a lot to gain from encouraging what I consider to be barbaric and anti-human surgery.

This issue should not be seen as political (or possibly even religious). Perhaps it belongs in another part of the forum. To me, it is science.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6005
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6667 times
Been thanked: 3225 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #155

Post by brunumb »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 6:36 pm Well, that's up to the individual. And it's sad for those who were wrong, which kids may very well be. Let them Darwin themselves off, but don't push them.
Adults are free to do whatever they like. No problem. Kids are not ready for life altering permanent decisions like surgical removal and manipulation of reproductive organs. They are currently caught up in a sort of mass hysteria. Rebellion in the past amounted to just wearing clothing and makeup that prompted the negative reactions they were after. Parents rode the tide. Now, parents are actually pushing their kids along and getting their own validation and acceptance by demonstrating how progressive and caring they appear to be. Let the adults Darwin themselves. Let the kids be kids again and not let gender stereotyping that we once fought to abolish actually drive a new agenda.

George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3554
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1148 times
Been thanked: 740 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #156

Post by Purple Knight »

brunumb wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 7:48 pmYou are now saying that scientific knowledge is at the mercy of language.
Put simply, yes. More precisely, I'm saying that scientific precision does not and cannot overwrite linguistic correctitude, even if casual language has flaws and inconsistencies. It will not be incorrect to call a jellyfish a jellyfish, because that's how a lot of people use the word, no matter how hard scientists try to redefine them as jelly animals. We can have scientific convention separate, and have two scientists talking about scientific fact, but if one of them reverts to casual fact and says jellyfish, he will never be incorrect, as long as the two of them are speaking English.
brunumb wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 7:48 pmWe need language to convey knowledge and understanding. To allow it to be subverted by populist linguistics is surely destructive.
Yes, and especially when populist convention is hardset against a scientific definition and defines it as incorrect. It is robbing you of a way to convey meaning, because new words have not come up to describe that real distinction. It's very Brave-New-Worldy. But it's a case of the People, who legitimately have that power, according to the dictionary, simply using it to get their way. The dictionary says, the People decide.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/getting-wo ... tionaries/
First off, we’re not fans of saying that something is “not a word.” Just because a word isn’t (yet) in the dictionary doesn’t mean that it’s “not a word” or that it’s not a “real word.”

Sometimes, people don’t think a word counts as a word if it’s informal, slang, “too new,” or a term they perceive to be “incorrect.” Irregardless (😉) of how you (or we) may feel personally about a particular word, our mission is to be descriptive—we work to describe and document language as it is really used (not just how we or others may want it to be used).

It’s important to note that judgments about what “counts” as a word often originate in conscious or unconscious biases, particularly about other people’s education, identity, or level of language proficiency.

Like we explained in the answer to the last question, we add a word to the dictionary when we observe a lot of people using it in the same way—and this includes many informal, slang, and nonstandard terms. You have the freedom to decide whether or not to use a word, but just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it ain’t a word.
Your wishes, the wishes of the scientific community, my wishes, and all of our arguments, no matter how good they are, mean squat. It would be nice if the dictionary declared that even if a large majority say that an old usage is incorrect, that's one thing they can't do if the minority still uses it that way. But it remains silent on that, giving the impression that the default is true if we assume the People are always right: They can delete and overwrite as well as add.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3554
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1148 times
Been thanked: 740 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #157

Post by Purple Knight »

brunumb wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:05 pmKids are not ready for life altering permanent decisions like surgical removal and manipulation of reproductive organs.
Those are their organs. Full stop. I don't care if you think they're hysterical, I don't care if I think they're hysterical. I don't care if they are hysterical. They're their organs. Someone on the Right should get this. (Now, perhaps, and I say this because I'm not on the Right, if someone doesn't want their testicles, harvest the sperm. If someone doesn't want their ovaries, grab the eggs. Give them to people who do want them and don't have.)

I don't want a geriocracy where 80-year-old turd-nurglers get to tell me what to do because I'm not as wise as they are. I don't want a gynocracy where women get to tell me what to do because their judgment is better, either, even if it is. And it is. Men are worse at avoiding addiction, avoiding gambling, reining in spending, and deferring gratification. Too bad. My stuff, my say. If I'm not as wise as them, too bad. It's my money to waste.

And I'm not likely to be hit with this one because I have a downright godly IQ, but I don't want someone taking care I don't make mistakes with my judgment because they're smarter, either. You know that thing we do where we say that if someone is 30 points below average, they don't get that sovereignty with their own stuff that you and I enjoy? Well if it's 30 points I could do it to a vast, vast majority of people. I could do it to other people legitimately classed as geniuses. Maybe rightly, in a few cases. Maybe I see that person in front of me at the convenience store clearly tweaking out on $150 worth of scratch tickets (real situation, and I'm standing there trying not to bust a nut) and maybe I put a stop to that with my "My Judgment > Yours" badge and maybe that's better for that person. Maybe my judgment is as much better than theirs, as a normal person's judgment is better than a child's.

But I think you don't want that to be the world. No one does, if they'd just sit down and fill in their mental picture of what it would be like. The better world is that my judgment never overrides yours, with your things, no matter what either of us is or isn't. And if you want to use your judgment to buy a gun and shoot me in the head, you pay for that.

(And if this affirmation-only stuff equals pushing, yeah don't push them. This is the only place the issue gets complicated. I'm frankly disgusted that merely being agreed with about your own body is such a luxury in the modern world, but it does shape perception, and it can deceive if someone rightly expects their shrink to tell them, no no, that's not how it is you're crazy, about everything.)

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 869 times
Been thanked: 1279 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #158

Post by Diogenes »

I've always been a fierce defender of the First Amendment. I successfully argued a 1st Amendment case in the Washington Supreme Court. But the right to free speech is not absolute. Donald *rump just got tagged for several $Million for his deliberate lies/defamation. But the damage these reckless and deliberate lies are doing to our country (e.g. an insurrection at the Capitol; electing boobs like *rump and Geo. Santos) has me thinking we need to tighten up the rules and penalties for deliberate and reckless public lies.

But, like Greg House says, "Everybody lies."

The essence of the 1st Amendment is freedom of thought, not freedom to lie. Still, changes need to be carefully made and the issue is fraught with difficulty. OTOH, putting Fox 'News' and Q-anon out of business wouldn't be so bad. ;)

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6005
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6667 times
Been thanked: 3225 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #159

Post by brunumb »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:19 pm
brunumb wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:05 pmKids are not ready for life altering permanent decisions like surgical removal and manipulation of reproductive organs.
Those are their organs. Full stop. I don't care if you think they're hysterical, I don't care if I think they're hysterical. I don't care if they are hysterical. They're their organs.
So, let them get tattoos at any age, drink alcohol and smoke at any age, take drugs, cut themselves. It's their bodies and they know best. No. Children need to be protected until they are old enough to be independent and capable of making fully informed decisions by themselves. I'm hopeful that the truth and sanity will ultimately prevail and that we won't have created a generation of lost people.

George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3554
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1148 times
Been thanked: 740 times

Re: Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Post #160

Post by Purple Knight »

brunumb wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:21 amSo, let them get tattoos at any age, drink alcohol and smoke at any age, take drugs, cut themselves. It's their bodies and they know best. No. Children need to be protected until they are old enough to be independent and capable of making fully informed decisions by themselves.
Yes, because your argument works exactly the same when it's an 80-year-old doing it to you. The fact that someone else's judgment is better than yours does not entitle them to make your decisions for you.

Gender ideology is just definition-enforced niceness. Let me give you other examples. If someone doesn't identify as fat, I shouldn't call them fat. If someone doesn't identify as ugly, I shouldn't call them ugly. People just aren't as upset about my ability to do so anyway and haven't seen it as important enough to define my ability to do it out of existence. And the only enforcement is in the propriety of the English language. You can still call a trans man a woman, you'll just be wrong. You'll also be cancelled, fired from your job, and if you produce anything, people will all stop buying it because this is very important to them. This is the capitalistic ideological fascism I always knew could happen, and I'm against it. I would use government force to stop it, if I could.

Post Reply