After reading this piece at The Conversation on misinformation in social media, in which three “experts” weigh in with their observations, I was left with one question: what is “misinformation”? The question is similar to another: what do you mean by “a lie”? I’ve provided my definition of lying previously: knowing telling of an untruth with the intent to deceive. I’m not sure I can come up with a similar definition of misinformation.
Here’s an example of my confusion. One of the experts cited above declaims:
There are two primary challenges in addressing misinformation. The first is the dearth of regulatory mechanisms that address it. Mandating transparency and giving users greater access to and control over their data might go a long way in addressing the challenges of misinformation. But there’s also a need for independent audits, including tools that assess social media algorithms. These can establish how the social media platforms’ choices in curating news feeds and presenting content affect how people see information.
Absent a definition, how do you regulate something? That sounds to me like a sweeping and tyrannical mandate to control speech.
Let’s consider some cases. I think that Biden won the 2020 presidential election beyond reasonable doubt and as evidence I would suhmit that no challenge to date has yet proven otherwise. And yet there are lots of otherwise reasonable people who don’t agree. If you say that Trump won the 2020 election, that is generally given as an example of “misinformation”.
Let’s consider some others.
Is anthropogenic global warming misinformation? It is certainly non-falsifiable. Every occurrence of an unexpected meteorological event these days is submitted as evidence of it. Is that misinformation? The models are only weakly predictive if that.
How about the existence of God? Is that misinformation?
“. And yet there are lots of otherwise reasonable people who don’t agree.”
Are they being reasonable if they have no proof to support their belief?
I also think lying with a strict definition like you use makes it harder to identify misinformation. There are tons of people who have no training and/or no knowledge or experience with statistics or scientific literature. I think they may not be deliberately trying to deceive when they cite papers that hav e no chance of being significant but it is clearly misinformation, especially when other people believe it.
“Every occurrence of an unexpected meteorological event these days is submitted as evidence of it. Is that misinformation? ”
It is at least stupid. I would have no problem if it was considered misinformation.
Steve
Misinformation should compare to misdirection, implying intent,
which implies motive, to gain.
“A little birdie told me Mitt Romney hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years “.
â€Let’s consider some cases. I think that Biden won the 2020 presidential election beyond reasonable doubt and as evidence I would suhmit that no challenge to date has yet proven otherwise.â€
Technically I think that statement is correct, insofar as no challenge has to date been successful. Nonetheless, the numbers of people – republicans, independents, even democrats – who think Biden is illegitimate are growing, not shrinking.
As an aside, most of the court cases regarding allegations of fraud, have not been fully adjudicated, having been primarily dismissed on lack of standing, timing or jurisdiction, rather than lack of evidence. In fact few courts have actually “heard†the evidence. In the meantime, despite federal law saying ballots and election materials must be retained for 22 months (Colorado is even longer), ballots have been destroyed, held back, machine routers hidden or denied access. Dominion has even gone around “servicing†machines soon after the election, replacing their batteries which amounts to wiping their voter logs clean. Basically, all methods of obstructing a real analysis of election fraud from taking place has been deployed. BTW, rudimentary rerunning ballots through a machine does not really constitute anything but recounting old ballots (legal and illegal ones), not checking any further dealing with signature matches, valid voter registrations, or unusual ballot counts exceeding a district’s own voter registration (irregularities which were reported in thousands of affidavits collected after the 2020 election). Consequently, I think more people, than given credit to, are not assuaged by the superficial means exercised thus far, to “prove†the 2020 election was on the up-and-up – or essentially legally done.
Furthermore, despite the passage of over a year, there continue to be numerous states devoting themselves to either re-examining the last presidential contest, or proposing additional safeguards affixed to the standard of care in how their elections are run – insuring more integrity rather than a sloppy hollowing out of election practices, as was exhibited in 2020.
In reality I think using the election of 2020 as an example of misinformation is an inaccurate labeling. Instead, it belongs more in the category of “cover-up,†Richard Nixon style.
Perhaps nowhere to put this other than into a piece on disinformation. Count me with Hoenig, and may Bernanke roast in hell.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-fed-s-doomsday-prophet-has-a-dire-warning-about-where-we-re-headed/ar-AAScw8l?ocid=msedgntp#image=1
“As an aside, most of the court cases regarding allegations of fraud, have not been fully adjudicated, having been primarily dismissed on lack of standing, timing or jurisdiction, rather than lack of evidence.”
And further, the general evidence used to counter fraud claims involves either a) running the same ballots through a machine several times and noting that the result does not change (which only measures machine accuracy) or b) noting that the number of dead people or double voters is few (See! No fraud.). Talk about intent to deceive.
Its the ballots. The ones produced and transported without any control procedures, late at night, after the opposition poll watchers were shooed away etc. All resulting in lottery odds-like results. That’s where the action is. And all attempts to analyze that have been avoided like the plague.
Talk about intent to deceive.
If I remember the argument correctly. The policies the Fed pursued in conjunction with the Big Banks, were too sophisticated for us to understand. The same was true with ballot counting discrepancies,
(your candidate may be winning when the polls close but lose in the late counting).
You see, unless “The adults in the room” remain in control, catastrophes too complicated to discern their origin may certainly occur.
Look, Hoenig has me convinced, but what can i do?
Hoard potatoes?
As I said, you have no evidence. Lots of stuff that has already been investigated, largely by Republicans, and still no evidence. Lots of whining though. Guess that counts for something.
Steve