Misinformation is just false information. Under its heading falls satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, miscalculation, and so on. The threat is not only too broad, but as it turns out, not that threatening at all. We’ve lived with some degree of it just fine for the entirety of human history, generally speaking.

But worse, the institutions commonly used to penalize misinformation have historically been the greatest progenitors of it.

On the other hand it seems reasonable to punish people for knowingly false bomb threats.

sure, that's already illegal and I beleive it should stay illegal.

So at least we agree with the principle that some speech shouldn't be allowed. The difficulty is in deciding exactly which speech shouldn't be allowed.

well this thread is about misinformation, not bomb threats. idk what OP thinks about bomb threats, but I disagree with OP about quite a lot of political things so he might think bomb threats should also be legal.

For me, misinformation is more about people lying about politically relevant facts - like making up stories about immigrants eating pets, for example.

Misinformation is just false information. Under its heading falls satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, miscalculation, and so on. — NOS4A2

Is that what the book is including? Misinformation in such broad terms should of course not be prohibited. Generally when this subject comes up, its about actively conveying information to people that are lies, when the subject knows they are lies. So, not satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, or miscalculation.

To that, do you see an issue with creating laws that prevent outright deception and lies to people on public platforms? Or should we allow people to deceive others without any risk? The law already forbids revenge, violence, and other forms of 'community regulation'. Can the community properly regulate purposefully deceptive facts with less harm then careful laws and the courts?

To that, do you see an issue with creating laws that prevent outright deception and lies to people on public platforms? Or should we allow people to deceive others without any risk? The law already forbids revenge, violence, and other forms of 'community regulation'. Can the community properly regulate purposefully deceptive facts with less harm then careful laws and the courts?

Yes, deception is terrible and immoral. It hurts being deceived, and further, to act on a false belief could lead to very real harm. More often or not this leads to some sort of penalty for the deceiver, for instance the loss of credibility, and as a result, the social and economical fruits that come with it.

Recall what Jaspers said. Both censorship and freedom will be abused. The question is, which abuse is preferable? Censorship leads to both the suppression of truth and its distortion, while freedom leads only to its distortion. Censorship is absolute, while distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.

who decides and enforced what is true and what is false? Personally I can’t think of any people, alive or dead, fit for such a task. — NOS4A2

You must be right, nos4, truth is indeterminable. Hmm, that means there is no disinformation; it all must be information. Well, one thing your "argument" makes clear is that you're a weasel - its a weasel argument - and you know it, which is part of being a weasel. Or I'm wrong and you're right, in which case you're still a weasel because no one can show as true that you're not.

And of course, to be sure, the proposition that it is not possible to know truth from falsehood is just more disinformation - which is a weasel's business!

More often or not this leads to some sort of penalty for the deceiver, for instance the loss of credibility, and as a result, the social and economical fruits that come with it. — NOS4A2

I wish this were the case, but its often not true. Especially when someone is in a powerful position and the law does not punish them for their transgressions. If it were so easy to punish such things, why would there be a call for the law? There is a call for the law because society is currently inadequate at addressing these issues alone. We don't touch things like comedy, parody, or opinions, because its clear these things are not meant to be authorities on information. But when someone pretends to be an authority on information, when they clearly know what they are peddling is false, we're seeing in real time that there is a minority majority of society that cannot handle it.

I think the problem you often run into on these forums with your worldview NOS4A2 is your ideals are viewed through the lens of a very small community. Rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. This is not a corruption, it is a necessary thing that must happen to assist with new community problems. It is actually natural for governments to form as societies grow. Show me a society of a several thousand people in a small living space without a government. It doesn't exist.

Your other problem is that you see that government can be corrupt, therefore it must be corrupt. Or that its corruption is beyond a minimal sense. Government is a tool, and like any social tool, if wielded right, it helps society. How do you think we're able to speak our minds without getting shot by our neighbors? A free society requires the management of resources and broad human conflicts.

Recall what Jaspers said. Both censorship and freedom will be abused. — NOS4A2

Which is why you build a government with safe guards and anti-corruption measures. Free and frequent elections. Rights, etc. The problem is that the peddling of false facts is corruption of the free market of ideas. It has long been ruled that yelling "Fire!" falsely in a theater to cause a stampede for your own amusement is not defendable. Why then should people peddling false information for their own gain in other areas suddenly be off limits? Corruption does not just apply to government. It applies to every single person.

freedom only leads to its distortion. Suppression is absolute , but distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.

In the most extreme case of having people that are working from within the system to actively bring about what might be the end of democracy, or humanity in general, I would say that freedom takes a back seat.

That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being misinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Whether or not we have actually reached a tipping point with regards to misinformation I don't know. Maybe we wouldn't even have to suppress speech. But I no longer see anything wrong with it in principle - and especially if it means saving our country.

I note that many of the fears over misinformation mention the threat to some amorphous, ill-defined order. Both China and the EU have this in common. From the EU, “The risk of harm includes threats to democratic political processes, including integrity of elections, and to democratic values that shape public policies in a variety of sectors, such as health, science, finance and more.” Or for China it threatens to “undermine economic and social order”. It’s clear to me that it is a threat to the state. Therefor, digital authoritarianism and the control of information is required. — NOS4A2

Interestingly, for Aristotle democracy is inherently unstable, especially in the direction of populism. So is a democracy that is safeguarded from "threats to democracy" still a democracy? Is democracy a threat to democracy?

The irony here is that calls for censorship meant to safeguard democracy from threats to democracy are themselves a threat to democracy, and this seems fairly uncontroversial. At the end of the day a kind of theocracy with science or some other truth-approach at the helm is not democracy.

How about that - "kibosh" and "kvetch" in the same response. — T Clark

Admirably diverse. Kibosh has Irish roots, kvetch is yiddish. Kibosh has a nicely gruesome origin -- referencing methods of execution:

Slanguage, A Dictionary of Irish Slang"]. Coles' dictionary of "difficult terms" (1684) has cabos'd "having the head cut off close to the shoulders". It isn't clear to me what the relative advantages would be of having one's head cut off further up the neck or closer to the shoulders. At any rate, putting the kibosh on something is a most assertive and definitive act.

The meaning of KVETCH is "to complain habitually", like @NOS4A2 whining about suppression of misinformation.

I'm not familiar with the laws regarding false advertising. I assume it is considered a type of fraud. — T Clark

The federal Lanham Act (1946) allows civil lawsuits for false advertising that “misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” of goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The FTC also enforces false advertising laws on behalf of consumers.

It's interesting that laws against false advertising weren't passed until 1946--if that is indeed when such protections were first put into place. A lot of "snake oil" products were advertised and sold with impunity, at least in the earlier 20th century, and generally false claims were made about a lot of products. "Caveat Emptor" is still a good idea, because lying, or intentional misrepresentation, hasn't disappeared.

Lying, misrepresentation, failure to inform, misleading manipulation of images and information, pettifogging, outright fraud, etc. are endemic, particularly when corporate prerogatives and profitability are at stake. Misinformation is the lifeblood of the petroleum industry, for example.

I wish this were the case, but its often not true. Especially when someone is in a powerful position and the law does not punish them for their transgressions. If it were so easy to punish such things, why would there be a call for the law? There is a call for the law because society is currently inadequate at addressing these issues alone. We don't touch things like comedy, parody, or opinions, because its clear these things are not meant to be authorities on information. But when someone pretends to be an authority on information, when they clearly know what they are peddling is false, we're seeing in real time that there is a minority majority of society that cannot handle it.

Well, we don’t have any say in the matter whether things like comedy, parody, and opinions are touched because we are not the authorities on such matters. So I think it’s a mistake to pretend that “we” in the grand sense, or society as a whole, have some sort of say.

I think the problem you often run into on these forums with your worldview NOS4A2 is your ideals are viewed through the lens of a very small community. Rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. This is not a corruption, it is a necessary thing that must happen to assist with new community problems. It is actually natural for governments to form as societies grow. Show me a society of a several thousand people in a small living space without a government. It doesn't exist.

Your other problem is that you see that government can be corrupt, therefore it must be corrupt. Or that its corruption is beyond a minimal sense. Government is a tool, and like any social tool, if wielded right, it helps society. How do you think we're able to speak our minds without getting shot by our neighbors? A free society requires the management of resources and broad human conflicts.

I appreciate the critique. Thank you.

But in my defence the very small community I view it through is me. I only have one pair of eyes. The fact that you or anyone else are afflicted with the same limitation, and cannot view the world nor speak about it through anyone’s lens but your own, puts the very idea of a community lens into immediate doubt. I just don’t know enough people of any given community to see or speak for them, and I’m sure that is the case for most.

It’s just not true that rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. They are imposed by very few individuals on the much wider society, and one can compare the amount of legislators at any given time to the amount of the rest of society in order to confirm this.

It is the history of states that leads me to believe governments are naturally corrupt. It’s an anti-social institution, an exploitative monopoly by its very nature and organization. As a rebuttal, I have a problem with the belief that as soon as a species of moral exemplars gain power, and use the government to help society and not themselves, it will no longer be. History attests to the opposite, and I would implore you to compare it against what I would call a dangerous hope.

Which is why you build a government with safe guards and anti-corruption measures. Free and frequent elections. Rights, etc. The problem is that the peddling of false facts is corruption of the free market of ideas. It has long been ruled that yelling "Fire!" falsely in a theater to cause a stampede for your own amusement is not defendable. Why then should people peddling false information for their own gain in other areas suddenly be off limits? Corruption does not just apply to government. It applies to every single person.

I’d love to get together with you and build safeguards and anti-corruption measures, but like the vast majority of human beings we do not have the power to do so. And it has long been overruled that falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded is indefensible, and was never a binding dictum in any law or otherwise. It’s just a popular analogy.

That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being disinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Of course the fascists would, so it makes no sense to afford them the power to do so. One of the best ways to avoid fascism is to not do what the fascists do, which in your idea is to suppress portions of the media to prevent such a takeover.

Their suppression is a gift to them. Note the Weimar fallacy, that had the Nazis been censored they wouldn’t have risen to power. The Nazis were routinely censored. Goebbels, Fritsch, and Julius Striecher were imprisoned for hate speech. Their publications were shut down (one hundred of them in Poland alone). Hitler himself was banned from speaking. Censorship did not help in the one instance where it should have. When Hitler debated Otto Wells regarding the Enabling Act he reminded Wells of how much he was censored, and this justified for him the passing of that law. They used these pre-existing laws to further suppress the opposition.

Interestingly, for Aristotle democracy is inherently unstable, especially in the direction of populism. So is a democracy that is safeguarded from "threats to democracy" still a democracy? Is democracy a threat to democracy?

The irony here is that calls for censorship meant to safeguard democracy from threats to democracy are themselves a threat to democracy, and this seems fairly uncontroversial. At the end of the day a kind of theocracy with science or some other truth-approach at the helm is not democracy.

It appears there are two-brands of "democracy" in conflict, the one that favors the power of the people, the other that favors the institutions that have arisen in representative democracies, for instance elections and parliaments and the credibility of those in power. It's an interesting conflict.

The point of misinformation in Russia is to have people just stop asking. It's like there's no truth anywhere.

When Hitler debated Otto Wells regarding the Enabling Act he reminded Wells of how much he was censored, and this justified for him the passing of that law. They used these pre-existing laws to further suppress the opposition. — NOS4A2

I'm pretty sure this is a deliberate misrepresentation of history. The Reichstag Fire Decree was far worse than, and thus superseded, any relatively weak laws that might have already existed against some speech I would think. And I'm sure you know the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed by the then president of Germany at the behest of Hitler with the intent of paving the way to totalitarianism. Thus, the Enabling Act was largely passed because the Nazis were able to work from within the system to create a situation in which they could eliminate their political opponents. My guess is that this regime of violent intimidation and suppression of freedoms played a larger part in the Enabling Act being passed than Hitler whining like a little bitch for being cancelled in the 1933 debate.

Their suppression is a gift to them. — NOS4A2

Yes, it certainly plays to the victimhood narrative fascists propagate, but is that really what made the difference in the case of the Nazis? That Hitler was canceled for being an insane, dangerous moron on multiple occasions? Is suppression of lunatics really so injurious?

That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being disinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Of course the fascists would, so it makes no sense to afford them the power to do so. One of the best ways to avoid fascism is to not do what the fascists do, which in your idea is to suppress portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. — NOS4A2

Then how do we stop them, NOS?

Why should we worry about misinformation? — NOS4A2

Disinformation does harm.

Direct harm:
-many failed to get COVID vaccines and suffered as a result.
-Increasing numbers of parents aren't getting their kids vaccinated against the various childhood diseases.
-Jan 6 2021: 4 rioters were killed. They were present because of disinformation about the election.
-Families of Sandy Hook sufferred harassment because a conspiracy theory pushed by Alex Jones
-the "Pizza Gate" conspiracy theory nearly led to deaths when a man who believed it shot his way into the restaurant to rescue nonexistent children from a nonexistent basement.
- On a personal note, I know two women who contracted breast cancer who chose "alternative treatments" hyped on the internet ("I do my own research"). One is dead; the other soon will be.

Indirect harm:
1) candidates often get elected for telling people what they want to hear - and many want to hear confirmation of the falsehoods they embrace as true. If those candidates truly believe, then they obviously have poor judgement - implying they will be incompetent. Even those who cater to those who embrace the falsehoods will need to bend policy in that direction for they own political survival.
2) the disinformation can drown out the facts, making it harder for even rational people to make informed judgements.

You can certainly frame the issue in terms of harm. You can also frame it in terms of freedom, since misinformation can at times act as a clear limit on freedom.

For instance, "knowing how to do," things is generally a precondition for being "free to do them." For example, I cannot fix my car if I have no idea how to address whatever issues it is having. One is not free to address their obesity if they have absolutely no idea as to the causes and solutions to the problem, etc

The internet is an exceptional tool for enhancing our freedom in this respect. For instance, it's pretty easy to find videos showing you how to fix all manner of issues on all varieties of automobile. Diet information is another matter. On the one hand, it's fairly easy to discover effective ways to deal with obesity; on the other, there is also a lot of bad advice on this front, as well as many products that purport to address this issue, but are effectively useless or even counterproductive.

Ignorance is a limit of freedom.


Here, it's worth considering the production of misinformation directly. Sometimes it is the result of ignorance. Sometimes people have a vested interest in not allowing people access to this sort of freedom, and so they intentionally generate misinformation to "muddy the waters" and decrease the "signal to noise ratio," vis-á-vis some issue. We might consider here how auto manufacturers have often ended up on court over claims that they intentionally make their vehicles difficult to repair, requiring specialized, patented tools, etc. in order to be able to charge more to repair them. It's not hard to see how mechanics and dealerships would have an incentive to produce bad information on how to fix our vehicles (if they could get away with it), since someone using such information will eventually get frustrated, break their vehicle further, etc. and eventually end up going to a mechanic to pay for repairs, and perhaps even more expensive repairs since they have done more harm than good in their attempts to fix the problem based on misinformation.

So, there is an important sense in which the freedom to be ignorant or to consume false beliefs is not freedom. We tend to miss this in the modern context because freedom is so often defined in terms of potency, the ability to "choose anything," and act is essentially ignored. As if we are giving up the "freedom to be tricked into addressing problems in ways that won't solve them," if we only have access to good information. But of course, a fire hose of misinformation makes it so that we are no longer free to actually solve those problems in an effective manner, because we cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

Of course, dealing with misinformation is made all the more difficult by modern assumptions about who is best able to sort through it. Should the doctor deal with information about health? Probably. But don't doctors have a vested interest in manipulating access to some sorts of information? Indeed, hasn't the American Medical Association been engaged in all sorts of rent seeking behavior to restrict access to healthcare in order to boost their membership's income?

Hence there is an issue where the specialist who is in the best position to vet knowledge vis-á-vis some subject is also generally the person who stands to benefit most from constricting access to some knowledge. This is why ethics is always going to be important. There is a reason why Plato had the leader of the ideal city be the one who is lost focused on the good of the whole.

However, the solution here is clearly not to say "all adults with a pulse are actually equally well positioned to vet all manner of information." Nor does "let's hold a popularity contest and whoever wins the popularity contest gets to pick who they want to monitor and deal with misinformation," seem like a particularly good solution.

Well, I have had some ideas about how we might better select leaders, but I don't think they're likely to be implemented any time soon.

I appreciate the critique. Thank you.

But in my defence the very small community I view it through is me. I only have one pair of eyes. The fact that you or anyone else are afflicted with the same limitation, and cannot view the world nor speak about it through anyone’s lens but your own, puts the very idea of a community lens into immediate doubt. — NOS4A2

I understand possibly more than you think. I grew up to a very different drummer. I had my own way of doing things and generally never favored group conformity. Not rebelliousness, just simply viewed the world differently then most. I don't mind being told what to do as long as its not for someone's personal gain at my expense. My personal value above all else is freedom. I genuinely believe in allowing as much freedom in a society as possible. But it is freedom within a society, not freedom from a society.

I was a high school math teacher for about 5 years in my past. As such, I was in a situation in which I had to manage anywhere from 1 to sometimes hundreds of kids at a time. You get to really understand people dynamics in larger populations. When I only had to manage one or two kids, rules were generally very lax. But as more and more kids enter into the picture, you can't be. Its like heating up a pot of water. More energy gets concentrated and if you don't put some type of lid on it, it bubbles over. You need clear, consistent, and fair rules. And you might think that the kids would be happier with lax rules in larger groups. They aren't. Nothing gets done. It becomes chaos.

Now, was I teaching math to lord it over kids and enjoy power? Hardly. I don't like putting people in a position where they have to listen to 'me'. But it was necessary that they listen to something, "the rules". To an individual, "the rules" may seem personal or restricting at times. But for a group, they're necessary. I had a strict no tardy policy. If you were late, you went to the office. Many kids hated it, but they all stopped being late within about two weeks. If I didn't have that? I would get tardy kids all year disrupting class.

My advice if you really want to see what group dynamics is like, is lead a group in some way. Organize a trip with a few close friends, then organize a trip with 30. Its night and day. "Rules" are necessary. And that requires some type of enforcement mechanism or governance. Done right, it creates respect and greater freedom within the group. Done wrong its a power trip and abuse. But not done at all? Its unorganized chaos where little gets done.

I’d love to get together with you and build safeguards and anti-corruption measures, but like the vast majority of human beings we do not have the power to do so. — NOS4A2

I think your input would be invaluable. True, we don't have the power to do so, but why be on these forums at all then? We have almost no power to do anything we come up with. Plato's "Republic" is a book about what the ideal Republic would entail, and he was no politician.

And it has long been overruled that falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded is indefensible, and was never a binding dictum in any law or otherwise. It’s just a popular analogy. — NOS4A2

I had to look that up, and you are largely right. Its never been overruled, it was just an analogy that was a non-binding dictum. In truth, it would only be a crime if the attempt to invoke panic succeeded and damages happened. Yet a theater that did not kick this person out would lose business overall, so there is some measure of culpability for the individual.

The issue we're currently having in society, is that is oftentimes profitable to peddle false information. There is little societal recourse for your father not getting the Covid Vaccine because they were told "Studies show you don't need it," and they die. Even if you can get monetary compensation after years of litigation, it doesn't bring your father back.

A carefully crafted bill that penalizes peddling knowingly false information for profit would curtail some of the outright falsehoods that have taken off in the social media age. But I also agree with you 100% that it must be carefully crafted. While it would be simpler to dismiss the issue for fear that a lack of nuance would cause more harm, the law can handle nuance well if the right people are behind it.

My advice if you really want to see what group dynamics is like, is lead a group in some way. Organize a trip with a few close friends, then organize a trip with 30. Its night and day. "Rules" are necessary. And that requires some type of enforcement mechanism or governance. Done right, it creates respect and greater freedom within the group. Done wrong its a power trip and abuse. But not done at all? Its unorganized chaos where little gets done.

I appreciate the story and advice. But is it any strange wonder that it involves children? A paternal outlook is a prerequisite to authority and undergirds the notion that other adults need to be governed as if they were kids.

The problem with collective action is well-enough known. There are too many conflicting interests among the individuals involved. But to insert a class of masters and institute coercive mechanisms in order to make it work is simply to put one or more persons interests over the others, and to exploit the rest in order to achieve those interests, which to me is immoral. Far better is it to find others with a common interest and coordinate and cooperate voluntarily.

A carefully crafted bill that penalizes peddling knowingly false information for profit would curtail some of the outright falsehoods that have taken off in the social media age. But I also agree with you 100% that it must be carefully crafted. While it would be simpler to dismiss the issue for fear that a lack of nuance would cause more harm, the law can handle nuance well if the right people are behind it.

That’s the problem. Who would you choose to decide what is true and false, and punish those who deviate from it?

Then how do we stop them, NOS?

The first step would be to stop acting like them, then win the argument.

Chomsky makes this case often:





False information cannot cause people to believe false information or act on false information. If you’d like to criminalize the cause of the harms you’d need to criminalize the act, for instance taking alternative medicine or refusing vaccines.

False information cannot cause people to believe false information or act on false information. If you’d like to criminalize the cause of the harms you’d need to criminalize the act, for instance taking alternative medicine or refusing vaccines — NOS4A2

I answered your question: "Why should we worry about misinformation?"

Are you disagreeing with my answer? You seem to be jumping to a conclusion that I'm proposing to criminalize something. I actually didn't propose a solution.

The Pizzagate conspiracy theory led to Edgar Welch driving from North Carolina to Washington DC and shooting his way into the restaurant. Perhaps you're suggesting the falsehood didn't "cause" him to do this. I'd agree that Welch is responsible for what he did, but this father of two would never have made the trip and committed the act if he had not seen the falsehood.

So please explain: do you agree, or disagree, with the answer I gave to your question. We need to get on the same page with that before we could possibly think of ways to address it.

I’m just saying the information never caused the harms you mentioned. The choices of those involved did. So why must I worry about the information?

I’m just saying the information never caused the harms you mentioned. The choices of those involved did. So why must I worry about the information? — NOS4A2

As I said: because people are harmed as a result. This is true EVEN IF there is nothing we can do about it.

As I said: because people are harmed as a result. This is true EVEN IF there is nothing we can do about it.

Sure, but harmed as a result of someone’s choices, not as a result of the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I appreciate the story and advice. But is it any strange wonder that it involves children? A paternal outlook is a prerequisite to authority and undergirds the notion that other adults need to be governed as if they were kids. — NOS4A2

Ha ha! I don't think its too strange. While we could look at it as 'paternalistic', we can also look at it as 'serving a community'. I viewed it as a duty to help ensure the most order with the least disturbance. Not for myself, but for the kids. However, I did meet teachers who definitely got a kick out of lording over kids. I think kids tend to know. One evidence for myself is I was able to handle 'trouble makers' in my class without issues. Its because I didn't yell at them, single them out, or hold any grudges. It was the rules, and you always had a clean slate the next day.

But really what we're touching on is, "Status". What is it and who deserves it. Status at its most basic is the idea that there are certain individuals who are so good at a particular need or want of humanity that we look to them for guidance in those areas.

Good status is when it is purely based on this mindset. The person of high status does their best to serve the person who knows less, and the person of low status is polite, pays for, and listens to the person who has those skills. Bad status is when a person is motivated by their own ego to be in a position of power. When it isn't about serving the other person, but themselves.

The problem with collective action is well-enough known. There are too many conflicting interests among the individuals involved. But to insert a class of masters and institute coercive mechanisms in order to make it work is simply to put one or more persons interests over the others, and to exploit the rest in order to achieve those interests, which to me is immoral. — NOS4A2

Too true, and I agree. But I believe this is an incidence of bad status, not the good kind. The existence of abusive status individuals is always a concern, but we don't want to eliminate the ability for good status individuals to flourish as well because we're so afraid of the poor ones. To prevent this, we need to give those of lower status the ability to either leave the relationship with the higher status individual, or replace them. Thus in governance we have elections, and we let people regardless of status vote. This forces anyone who wants to stay in a position of power to serve the majority of their people, or at least the one's who vote. We also allow recalls, and have rights to block certain decisions from those in power.

Far better is it to find others with a common interest and coordinate and cooperate voluntarily. — NOS4A2

In most cases, I agree. But governance is something that we cannot withdraw from once a population reaches a certain size. Governance is about the resolution of all those difference conflicts over resources and culture. If governance was not there, history demonstrates that crime and war will be used by one side or the other to obtain what they want. Proper governance is the avenue by which we may obtain compromise without bloodshed or crime.

That’s the problem. Who would you choose to decide what is true and false, and punish those who deviate from it? — NOS4A2

First, we of course keep the jurisprudence that has worked over centuries. Innocent until proven guilty, and burden beyond a reasonable doubt. One very simple way to determine it is to go after citations. If I say an article is one thing, when it clearly isn't, its either negligence or malfeasance. Fairly cut and dry. If a politicians claims they were under sniper fire in a helicopter, when all the military reports prior to this claim showed no snipers in that area, we have a clear contradiction between facts and statements.

At the least, this will incentivize people to think carefully about statements of fact before noting them. A short pause or a political candidate or social media entertainer can sometimes be enough to alter a culture which sees lies as highly beneficial with little potential cost if caught. Thus we let the courts handle it, and allow a prosecution and defense to hash it out in court. The prosecutor would provide the documentation of both the original source, and the improper citation, and have to convince the judge/jury that this was intention by the defense.

Anyway, been a lovely conversation, but I have to head out for the day. Stay well Nos, and good points.

Sure, but harmed as a result of someone’s choices, not as a result of the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. — NOS4A2

Are you suggesting that Edgar Welch would have shot up Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria even if he had never read that Democrats were sex trafficking children? That's ludicrous.

It appears there are two-brands of "democracy" in conflict, the one that favors the power of the people, the other that favors the institutions that have arisen in representative democracies, for instance elections and parliaments and the credibility of those in power. It's an interesting conflict. — NOS4A2

Interesting, to be sure. :up:

False information cannot cause people to believe false information or act on false information. — NOS4A2

This seems to me like a ridiculous generalization. If I lie to my boss this morning which makes him take unnecessary action, why can't I be held responsible for causing my boss to take action? False information has probably driven people to commit suicide on rare occasion. There have been those sextortion crimes of young folks on social media recently causing suicides. The Malleus Maleficarium of the 15th century caused paranoid adults to kill a lot of people. It is an example of the dispersal of a text ramping up domestic terror.

Global society is built on the power of people acting on information they trust is true. Misinformation at an excessive level undermines this trust.