I just wanted to say this simple thing... There are self appointed gatekeepers of information. They decide which information is allowed to be heard and which information is not allowed to be heard. In truth it is all simply information. They have used propaganda and psychological techniques in deploying the label "Misinformation".
That label is rather loaded. It has the concept of intent embedded in it. It reality it is simply a way for them to say that anyone speaking against their desired narrative is lying.
The thing about a lie is that it requires intent. You have to be aware that the information you are providing is inaccurate and intentionally misleading. If there is no intent then it is not a lie.
This is also true of the concept of Misinformation.
Misinformation implies intent. It also implies that some humans are the arbiters of truth and must be listened to. Anyone but them that speaks about other things is spreading misinformation.
This is propaganda. It is manipulation.
The truth is that those applying the label "misinformation" are the ones actually guilty of what the label would imply.
They don't need to address information that is inconvenient to their goals. They simply label it as misinformation. They then have added misinformation as a bannable offense within End User License Agreements (EULAs) and they can use that to ban anyone that says something they don't like. They will say because it is misinformation.
If the person believes what they are saying then it is simply information.
It may not be information convenient to your preferred world view but it is still information. There is no MIS-about it.
If you simply replace the label Misinformation with the phrase "inconvenient statements for maintaining my worldview" then it might become clear. That is actually what is occurring here.
Banning people for it is NOT justified and is simply trying to play word games to justify censorship and violation of free speech.
They may say "It is offensive..." so what? Anything can be offensive. Part of being mature is learning to move on. Being offended is a CHOICE. You choose what offends you. You also choose how to react to it.
They may say "It is hate speech." It may be speech that you hate but it is likely there was no actual hate involved in the speech itself.
Sometimes, I actually think that most misinformation is that which is put out there by those behind the scenes to simply subvert and control the masses by feeding them divisive material that will keep them fighting each other and not looking up.
I don't consider anything misinformation unless I can prove intent. To me it is just information. That doesn't mean the information is correct. It may definitely be incorrect. Yet there is a difference between being wrong and lying.
Important topic. When I worked in the news here in my country, I had a great opportunity to review these kinds of concepts and I realized: everyone has a narrative that they support, not even because of an agenda, just a personal preference. When this narrative is unsubstantiated on verifiable facts or woven with unfounded opinions rather than research and observation, then it can misinform, whether it was the original intent or not is another matter entirely.
In order to identify what constitutes misinformation and what doesn't, we'd need to work on our own biases and personal narratives first. It's quite easy to say "They do this!" where "They" signifies a group that we don't agree with or consider a danger to our lifestyle. Not as easy to study ourselves and see whether what we're saying is true, useful or well-supported by evidence.
This is true. However, it should always still be allowed. Simply countered with evidence.
The thing is today people seem to think they can call something "misinformation" and send it to a blackhole of censored simply by uttering that label... "misinformation".
No evidence required. No chance for people to see the original content and decide for themselves. Nope. Just trust the other humans who get to tell us what the "misinformation" is.
As to research. In this era of the search engine you can find research to support almost any narrative. It can often be quite circular in references as well.
It is especially the case if you use search engines which have begun censoring information themselves.
EDIT:
I also think "Misinformation" is being used too much as a propaganda tool these days.
I'd prefer they simply say "wrong" or "incorrect" and tell us why, while still allowing us to see the original content.
Would it be misinformation possibly that when you search for a topic you are only given a chance to know about results that the algorithm programmer and maintainer thinks you should be able to see?
I agree, information should just be allowed for people to make up their minds. However, we all have our own filters, we choose what to believe and that belief shapes our worldview. Whether there's an agenda behind that worldview or not, it's impossible to say. After all, freedom of information scares the hell out of most people, not only those in power.
Thanks for the reflection, it's quite relevant and profoundly connected to opacity and emotional intelligence, among other things.
A damn good thing too. If we all believed the same thing and it turned out that things was false we would ALL fail.
Fortunately each of us is a walking experiment. Some will succeed, others will fail, but hopefully we collectively can learn from the successes and failures.
It's too bad they so often try to hide failures. That makes it really hard to learn from them.
Who checks the fact-checkers?
Who chooses the fact-checkers?
!hivebits
The solution is to ditch the word "Misinformation". The solution is to not call something a lie unless you have proof of intent. Mind reading and assumptions are not proof.
Speech is speech. It is guaranteed to sometimes be speech you would not like to hear.
You can attempt to counter it with words if you so choose. As long as they don't censor/ban you, etc.
I also don't tend to dwell on things I cannot prove. I think you and I have already done this dance before.
I go off of probabilities. My probability matrix changes as I encounter more and more information.
If you can't prove it then you certainly shouldn't punish someone for something.
@dwinblood! You Are Alive so I just staked 0.1 $ALIVE to your account on behalf of @germangenius. (1/10)
The tip has been paid for by the We Are Alive Tribe through the earnings on @alive.chat, feel free to swing by our daily chat any time you want.
You can't talk about a thing without using the word. Well you can but you'd spend paragraphs describing it. You know damn well why I am using it as it is unavoidable in terms of encountering it being bantered about and used as an excuse (a false excuse) every day.
You could just easily say "Why speak at all?" and we could spend a lot of time dwelling on the philosophy and thought, perhaps nihilism, and why we should even bother at all.
Ultimately I choose to for expedience. Mostly because I have had these thoughts that I share.
Why? Someone reading them may have a counter thought which they share or they may benefit from my thoughts.
Reaching someone else new, or seeing someone new begin freely thinking is not a common thing. Yet when it happens it makes all the failures worth it as far as I am concerned.
It is one of the reasons I write and engage. I also learn from people in the process and my mind (probability matrix) evolves.
I also don't seek that kind of peace. I definitely grew up in environments that taught me how to achieve peace. I don't see it as being as beneficial as me engaging. That is my personal choice.
@dwinblood! You Are Alive so I just staked 0.1 $ALIVE to your account on behalf of @germangenius. (3/10)
The tip has been paid for by the We Are Alive Tribe through the earnings on @alive.chat, feel free to swing by our daily chat any time you want.
If you have the opportunity you can point out the farce that is the label "misinformation" when you have the chance. It may be ignored, blocked, etc. Yet over time perhaps we can point it out as the bullshit that it is.