• Relativist
    2.4k
    So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

    Misinformation cannot control a motor cortext. It did not plan the attack or load the weapon. Information cannot act. It did not contribute to the act because it is incapable of contributing.
    NOS4A2
    You agreed the disinformation was a necessary condition to the bad act. That logically implies that in the absence of the disinformation, the act would not have occurred. In your defense of your position, you're coflating "necessary and sufficient" with "necessary". I haven't suggested that the disinformation alone caused the bad act, but you keep treating it that way- so you aren't confronting the issue I brought up.

    who's harmed by such a requirement?

    I did answer this question.
    NOS4A2
    I can only find you falsely asserting it's a violation of free speech. This doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want, nor does it prevent them creating fake videos- so no rights are being infringed. (There's no right to commit fraud).

    deep fakes are not "unequivocal lies",NOS4A2
    That's utter nonsense. They depict a person saying/doing things they did not do - and they appear real. It's fraud. It's fine to parody, and watermaking wouldn't prevent that.

    for us to figure out on our own accord what is true or false without a third party such as yourself.NOS4A2
    Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.
  • NOS4A2
    9k


    Also "immediate cause" or "proximate cause".
    My voice directly stimulates cochlea, or a electronic sensor.

    By your "metaphysics", a twitch of an index finger never killed anyone, nor usually a gun, but only bullets. So nothing to fear from someone with a gun.

    That’s true. That’s what bullets are made for, why they are shaped the way they are, etc.

    It doesn’t follow that you shouldn’t fear someone shooting bullets at you, however.
  • NOS4A2
    9k


    Because I think there is something more useful to consider than the thread's title question, "Why should we worry about misinformation?"

    Regardless of any matter of "should" there is the simple matter that some people do care about the damage to humanity that results from the propagation of disinformation and misinformation, and some people don't. To justify that all people should care, it would seem important that all people could care. So the topic of whether some people can't care is relevant, and that brings up psychopathy and whether you are capable of caring about the damage to humanity resulting from misinformation.

    My own worry is the damage to humanity resulting from censorship. Are you capable of caring about that?
  • NOS4A2
    9k


    You agreed the disinformation was a necessary condition to the bad act. That logically implies that in the absence of the disinformation, the act would not have occurred. In your defense of your position, you're coflating "necessary and sufficient" with "necessary". I haven't suggested that the disinformation alone caused the bad act, but you keep treating it that way- so you aren't confronting the issue I brought up.

    Do you believe that since something is a necessary condition it therefor contributed to the act?

    I can only find you falsely asserting it's a violation of free speech. This doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want, nor does it prevent them creating fake videos- so no rights are being infringed. (There's no right to commit fraud).

    You’re just going to have to look harder before falsely asserting I didn’t answer it. And yes, vandalizing someone’s work violates their free speech.

    That's utter nonsense. They depict a person saying/doing things they did not do - and they appear real. It's fraud. It's fine to parody, and watermaking wouldn't prevent that.

    Hokum. Sassy Justice is satire, not a fraud.

    Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

    So why not get better at discerning what is true than giving some people the power to be the final word on truth?
  • wonderer1
    2.2k
    My own worry is the damage to humanity resulting from censorship. Are you capable of caring about that?NOS4A2

    Sure.

    But you are being disingenuous.

    Much more likely seems an egocentric fear on your part of you being 'censored' in the sense of being banned for low post quality, though of course that wouldn't actually be censorship. I suppose it is likely that your victim mentality would make it censorship in your mind.
  • NOS4A2
    9k


    I’m sure you wouldn’t consider your fantasies to be misinformation or have any worry about damaging humanity with it. But in fact the only damage it has done is to you. It’s ok; you’ll survive.
  • jorndoe
    3.6k
    Isn't this roughly how it goes?

    → information → decisions → acts →

    Lack of information tends to result in more arbitrary acts. :down:
    How to personally verify this or this, for example?
    The world is markedly larger than any individual. :shrug:
  • Relativist
    2.4k
    Do you believe that since something is a necessary condition it therefor contributed to the act?NOS4A2
    My impression is that you're narrowly focusing on the immediate cause of an act, and ignoring the fuller context.

    A necessary condition is both a contributing cause and a necessary cause of the act.
    Necessary causes
    If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the prior occurrence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

    Contributory causes
    For some specific effect, in a singular case, a factor that is a contributory cause is one among several co-occurrent causes. It is implicit that all of them are contributory. For the specific effect, in general, there is no implication that a contributory cause is necessary, though it may be so. In general, a factor that is a contributory cause is not sufficient, because it is by definition accompanied by other causes, which would not count as causes if it were sufficient.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality


    Sassy Justice is satire, not a fraud.NOS4A2
    Adding a watermark does not hinder satire. Even if satire is evident in its original context, a video can be copied, truncated, and distributed on social media without the context.


    vandalizing someone’s work violates their free speech.
    Does a person not have the right to control the use of one's image? Using someone's image without permission to convey a falsehood is fraud, and if it casts a negative light on the person, it constitutes slander. The alternative to a watermark would be more draconian fraud and slander laws and/or laws against using a person's image without permission.

    Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

    So why not get better at discerning what is true than giving some people the power to be the final word on truth?
    NOS4A2
    You completely ignored my point. Deepfakes can make it harder to discern the truth, and this is a case of unequivocal truth. It does not entail empowering some person or group to make a judgement- it entails exposing an unequivocal falsehood at its source.
123456Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment