What's The Solution To Misinformation?

[Dromedary]

1 hour ago, hackey lad said:

Hallelujah . Please sir , accept an imaginary handshake from me for the power you have to read my mind. 

Should the moderation include bans /suspensions for a poster changing peoples posts ?

Yes, that used to happen before and the post was also deleted. IIRC I believe it was all to do with copyright as well.

[top4718]

2 hours ago, Hecate said:

To try to get back to the original point of this thread, specifically the subject of countering misinformation and improving the situation, the post below reminds me of one of the main problems: it's really difficult to get people to change their minds by directing them to information from reliable sources that challenge their beliefs.

 

The backfire effect, when people actually double down on their original position when faced with contradictory evidence, has itself been challenged recently, but it's a very interesting perspective and one which you see all the time on here and in other places where folk are clearly really invested in the discussion.

 

Here's a nice article about it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The get out clause here is to ignore any facts that go against the narrative as many on the Covid thread do, the "ignore and it'll go away" tactic, its the same for both sides.

[Mr Bloke]

11 minutes ago, top4718 said:

The get out clause here is to ignore any facts that go against the narrative as many on the Covid thread do, the "ignore and it'll go away" tactic, its the same for both sides.

Hmmm...

If only that worked, Mr Top...

... fancy a mince pie?

[Anna B]

Either we have free speech or we don't, there is no middle ground, which means we have to allow all to express their views, no matter how outragious/barking they might seem. It's up to us to decide what to believe or not.

 

Just like there are agent provocateurs infiltrating various forces, I believe agent provocateurs are also posing ridiculous outragious claims  on the internet to discredit all information on there, so nobody believes any of it, or at least, don't know what to believe and what to dismiss. (If you can't beat 'em join 'em....)

IMO the only way to counter it is to do the research, and check and check again until the balance of probability leans one way or the other - and don't forget you can still be wrong... 

Even the most outrageous conspiracy theories should still be considered and investigated, I mean, for example, who would have thought 'Bohemian Grove' was a real thing until the video evidence surfaced. 

 

Power and money does strange things to people. They have to get their kicks somehow. I hate the expression 'woke' but all it means is that you've rumbled a few porkies or weirdnesses in the corridors of power, which let's face it isn't difficult. If corrupt governments have lost the trust of the people, they only have themselves to blame.

 

 

[Longcol]

Just now, Anna B said:

Either we have free speech or we don't, there is no middle ground, which means we have to allow all to express their views, no matter how outragious/barking they might seem. It's up to us to decide what to believe or not.

 

 

So do we have the right to sue people who might tell damaging lies about us?  Do with have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre?

 

Can I come round to your house and plaster "Paedophile" all over your walls?

[top4718]

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So do we have the right to sue people who might tell damaging lies about us?  Do with have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre?

 

Can I come round to your house and plaster "Paedophile" all over your walls?

If you want to do the first one crack on son, you'll get thrown out while the rest enjoy the film, the second would be criminal damage so not really the same thing.

[Longcol]

10 minutes ago, top4718 said:

If you want to do the first one crack on son, you'll get thrown out while the rest enjoy the film, the second would be criminal damage so not really the same thing.

So we don't have complete freedom of speech then?

[top4718]

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So we don't have complete freedom of speech then?

Yes absolutely, you might just get a black eye for one and an arrest for the criminal damage in the other, your examples are pretty poor tbf.

[Longcol]

6 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Yes absolutely.

Good - that was what I was trying to explain to Anna B - see #114 above.

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

So do we have the right to sue people who might tell damaging lies about us?  Do with have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre?

 

Can I come round to your house and plaster "Paedophile" all over your walls?

There are already laws to cover most things.

Eg the example you use (calling 'fire' in a crowded theatre) would probably be covered by breach of the peace, or malicious mischief, or endangering life and limb due to panic and crushing. Not the correct terminology I know, but you get the idea. 

Telling damaging lies such as writing Paedophile on a person's house may contravene the slander or lible laws or some such. 

We have a very comprehensive legal system which contains laws for all occasions, and even contradicts itself sometimes. but you have to have proof of claims being right or wrong. That's where the expensive  lawyers come in. 

 

It will be interesting to see how the Julian Assange case pans out if it ever reaches court. All he did was tell the truth, but did he put American lives at risk, or save them from risk.