Misinformation dilemma.

[ignoramus]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-mis...cicC5fhvJc

"Is it reasonable to outright ban information that is both harmful and wrong? Does freedom and democracy really require that massive platforms are given to utter nonsense?"

Institutions are still struggling with the challenge of dealing with deadly healthcare information. This challenge was not caused by social media, but certainly was exacerbated by it. And it also did not suddenly become relevant during the COVID pandemic, but was brought into sharper relief. What we are experiencing now is actually part of a much longer trend, and is essentially a conflict between freedom on the one hand and quality control for the purpose of public good on the other. A solution at either extreme seems unlikely, and perhaps there is no ideal solution.

It is the classic dilemma. A similar argument to the "how far can you tolerate intolerance" argument.

My question to you guys is:

Are we OK for governments and social media platforms to censor topics and posts and even written/printed articles which go against the mainstream scientific evidence?
If not, why not.

But then, how do authorities police against gatherings like this in Melbourne?
How can scientifically/medically uneducated police decide who is right or wrong?





I don't think censorship is the answer. How can you police against opinion?
I think from the moment we enter a free democratic world, the small print should read: "Caveat emptor" and leave it at that.

[Ranjr]

When the rules were written, information didn't travel so far so fast to have the impact it can and often does.  We can't dismiss a possible solution based on previous notions.  We also shouldn't forget why we held such a notion, in this case, the aversion to censorship.  In the interest of preserving truth, how many lies can we allow?  All?

Can we teach people to be better thinkers?  Generally more knowledgeable, aware of propaganda techniques and their own desire to believe what they want to hear?  

<old men laughing>

Then what?  Something's gotta give.

[Fake Messiah]

It's their company so they can do what they want, but I am not much for censorship of misinformation because it doesn't much work. I see that a lot of youtubers get their videos falsely flagged because of it, or why I don't put my videos on YouTube when I want to share them here portraying people who are lying, so I use Facebook.

The other reason is that there is also accepted misinformation, like religion, so when religious people see that misinformation allowed, they think it is acceptable and not misinforming.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I don't see a dilemma we don't allow people to lie in other aspects of life would should we allow it here? Misinformation is particularly awful because it forces legitimate organizations to waste their time correcting it and the police don't need to be educated as Anti Vaxxers are by default wrong so their protests are by default spreading misinformation. As for the idea of Caveat emptor, we would never accept that elsewhere so why here? As for religion we simply have to be pragmatic on that one as we're never going to police that unfortunate type of misinformation. But that doesn't mean we allow the floodgates to open and allow the cranks to overrun society. Otherwise, the truth is simply reduced to an opinion and that's unsustainable for any society. Also, everyone is entitled to an opinion but make that opinion public and you have opened it to scrutiny.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Apparently, the judicial system CAN do something about misinformation:




Boru

[ignoramus]

^ There's a huge double standard there. How many Christians jurors are there... Aren't Christians "irrational" by definition?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^ There's a huge double standard there. How many Christians jurors are there... Aren't Christians "irrational" by definition?

Baby steps, mate. Baby steps.

Boru

[Ahriman]

Everything should be allowed, literally everything. Censorship is a scare tactic.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Everything should be allowed, literally everything. Censorship is a scare tactic.

Nope not allowing misinformation to enter society is like not allowing a poison to enter the body.

[Spongebob]

I pretty firmly support excluding information that is pseudoscience, misinformation, fake news and certainly any sort of intolerance speech. We have a long history of excluding such nonsense in legitimate news outlets and most of those are giving way to things like social media, which are becoming the primary source of information for people. The reason is simple, legitimacy or normalizing. When you allow someone to have a legitimate platform, you normalize their content and people who are either too stupid or too gullible are easily taken in. I don't think its necessary to outright ban any sort of publications because its much easier to understand that marginalized publications are not legitimate. Only truly nutty people ever thought Art Bell was legitimate. But now that the content of Fox "News" makes anything Bell talked about seem boring by comparison, I have friends who were once reasonable people who are now brainwashed. My opinion is keep pseudoscience and fake news on the edges of respectability and you keep reasonable people from considering them legit.