Simply because you don’t share your boss’ motor-cortex. You are responsible for what you do while your boss is responsible for what he does. It’s simple physics and biology.

Would The Malleus Maleficarium cause you to kill someone? I doubt it.

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.

No. Just note that many people read it and did nothing of the sort. So you have one instance of someone reading it and then later committing the crime. Compare that to the many others who did read it and then did nothing. If your theory is that those words cause people to commit harmful acts, you’ll likely need a greater sample of evidence to support it.

Would you commit the crime if you read it?

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

Ridiculously overbroad definition. Misinformation and disinformation are

* Either knowingly false, or told with indifference to their truth
* Told for the benefit of the teller, likely at the cost of the hearer and society at large
* Crucially, they target populations, not individuals

The cost of misinformation is clear.

*Cost to the individual: one cannot act in ones best interest misinformed.
*Cost to society: The actions of the misinformed are often to the detriment of society at large
*Distortion of democracy: democracy is impossible in both the absence of information and the predominance of misinformation. The will of the people devolves to the will of the most potent disinformers.

There is no obvious solution. The chief danger of misinformation laws is that these same laws can be used to suppress the truth while effectively promoting disinformation. This is a common pattern in repressive societies

Simply because you don’t share your boss’ motor-cortex. You are responsible for what you do while your boss is responsible for what he does. It’s simple physics and biology. — NOS4A2

It is simplistic physics and biology that treats humanity as if each individual human is her own pocket universe, and ignores the interactions between people which result in us changing each other's thinking to some degree.

Perhaps it is misguided on my part, but I am loath to provide you with knowledge (power) of such interactions, due to your general lack of understanding of, and empathy for, people. So don't expect me to argue the point.

Simply because you don’t share your boss’ motor-cortex. You are responsible for what you do while your boss is responsible for what he does. It’s simple physics and biology. — NOS4A2

This could be a matter of mutable perspective. I might as well be a mechanical limb at this point, controlled by speech impulses, which he would gladly toss if it stopped working.

Would The Malleus Maleficarium cause you to kill someone? I doubt it. — NOS4A2

It's much more a condition of mass belief, or socially pressured acts. If everyone was in danger of being targeted as a witch it is possible I'd be much more likely to participate in finding witches as a survival mechanism.

I don’t expect you to argue the point, because you have none. I’ve never said any person is his own universe, have never ignored human interaction, nor have I given any indication of my empathy.

It's much more a condition of mass belief, or socially pressured acts. If everyone was in danger of being targeted as a witch it is possible I'd be much more likely to participate in finding witches as a survival mechanism.

That is a more interesting theory in my opinion.

All I know is, had they put that book to the flame for the fear that it caused people to kill others we wouldn’t have a chance to read it today. And the fact that it doesn’t cause people who read it today to kill others proves to me that something else caused them to kill others. Besides, I doubt many of them even knew how to read.

Just note that many people read it and did nothing of the sort. So you have one instance of someone reading it and then later committing the crime. Compare that to the many others who did read it and then did nothing.

If your theory is that those words cause people to commit harmful acts, you’ll likely need a greater sample of evidence to support it. — NOS4A2

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?

I am in favor of allowing neo-Nazis to express themselves freely. I would say the problem arises when portions of the media collude with fascists to report and spread disinformation in a concerted effort to gain power to subvert the federal government. To prevent things like that, I think we should hold those media outlets accountable somehow, or at least offset the effects of the lies via some safeguards. I don't think that that is too objectionable.

There is no obvious solution. The chief danger of misinformation laws is that these same laws can be used to suppress the truth while effectively promoting disinformation. This is a common pattern in repressive societies — hypericin

I think you are mostly right, but usually when such laws are created in repressive societies, it isn't to fight the kind of edge case I describe above, but rather to repress for repression's sake or to enable authoritarian rule. Thus, I think that the intent behind the implementation of such laws is probably a somewhat decent indicator of whether or not they will be easily abused; the rubric in a repressive society for what constitutes disinformation would likely be broader or shift more easily to suit the powers that be as a result of policy hinging largely on the will of the repressors. In a freer, more democratic society these laws would probably just arise naturally from elected representatives legislating it to prevent certain virulent strains of disinformation. Of course, good intentions can always lead to bad consequences.

...nor have I given any indication of my empathy. — NOS4A2

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

I think you are mostly right, but usually when such laws are created in repressive societies, it isn't to fight the kind of edge case I describe above, but rather to repress for repression's sake or to enable authoritarian rule. — ToothyMaw

You don't repress for repressions sake. The above is not an edge case, it is the main case. They might brand the governments collusion with the neo Nazis as misinformation, or criticism of the neo Nazis themselves. Whilst their political opponents receive no such protection from the misinformation laws, the government itself would probably be an organ for spreading Disinformation about them.

dis

Thus, I think that the intent behind the implementation of such laws is probably a somewhat decent indicator of whether or not they will be easily abused; — ToothyMaw

Intent matters only because a government with bad intent will write the law such that it can be exploited by them. While a more benevolent government would take more care to add safeguards.

I think you are mostly right, but usually when such laws are created in repressive societies, it isn't to fight the kind of edge case I describe above, but rather to repress for repression's sake or to enable authoritarian rule.
— ToothyMaw

You don't repress for repressions sake. The above is not an edge case, it is the main case. They might brand the governments collusion with the neo Nazis as misinformation, or criticism of the neo Nazis themselves. Whilst their political opponents receive no such protection from the misinformation laws, the government itself would probably be an organ for spreading Disinformation about them. — hypericin

Okay, fair enough. Not an edge case. But I do think that at a certain point repression can become indiscriminate insofar as totalitarian regimes go, almost to the point of doing it for its own sake, i.e. I don't think every suppressive law in North Korea, for instance, is a cog in some intricate machine that operates totally efficiently and always in a directed manner to serve a greater purpose. I cannot read the intent behind every crappy law in every crappy dictatorship, but my guess is that some of them aren't even put into action to directly benefit the ruling class, although the majority definitely are.

Intent matters only because a government with bad intent will write the law such that it can be exploited by them. While a more benevolent government would take more care to add safeguards. — hypericin

That is almost exactly what I said here:

I think that the intent behind the implementation of such laws is probably a somewhat decent indicator of whether or not they will be easily abused; the rubric in a repressive society for what constitutes disinformation would likely be broader or shift more easily to suit the powers that be as a result of policy hinging largely on the will of the repressors. In a freer, more democratic society these laws would probably just arise naturally from elected representatives legislating it to prevent certain virulent strains of disinformation. — ToothyMaw

The authoritarians would write the law such that the rubric for what constitutes disinformation or misinformation would be likely be broader and more dynamic, while those in a mostly benevolent government would have some specific ideas of what kinds of disinformation they would target i.e. certain virulent forms of disinformation related to enabling fascists' attempts to subvert the government.

The term 'misinformation' should be replaced simply by 'propaganda'.

All sides use propaganda. All sides want people to believe their bullshit, while not believing the other sides' bullshit. The actors then have to engage in linguistic gymnastics to conceal the fact that they're two sides of the same shit coin.

Propaganda brokers (such as governments) do not want you to arm yourself against propaganda in general.


My advice: be worried about propaganda, it is extremely powerful and almost universally misunderstood.


It is often assumed that better education will decrease receptiveness to propaganda, but this does not seem to be true and there are actually indicators that people with higher educations are more vulnerable to propaganda. Noam Chomsky famously argued this.

My take on this is that people misunderstand the main vector of propaganda, which isn't reason or rationality, but emotion and psychology. People who are more cerebral and less in touch with their emotions and/or 'gut-feeling' may therefore be more susceptible to propaganda.


If one wants to arm themselves against propaganda, one should study (their own) psychology.

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?

I do not.

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

You must have a great understanding and empathy for others.

It definitely varies, as is typical of social primates.

What is the point of your comments, really?

Great! So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it.

So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?

I do not agree, and am not open to considering ways to limit the spread.

I do not agree, and am not open to considering ways to limit the spread. — NOS4A2

I had previously asked:

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree? — Relativist

You answered:

I do not. — NOS4A2

Did you misunderstand the first question?

If so, then explain why you deny that in the cases I cited, disinformation was a necessary condition.

You know as well as I do that I was disagreeing with this claim:

So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it.

You are trying to maximize rather than minimize misinformation. And still nothing bad has become of it. All of it reflects on your own behavior instead of threatening me and my safety.

You know as well as I do that I was disagreeing with this claim:

So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it. — NOS4A2

No, that wasn't at all clear. I asked you a specific yes/no question - that you answered. Now you're blaming me for your answering it wrong.

You are trying to maximize rather than minimize misinformation. And still nothing bad has become of it. All of it reflects on your own behavior instead of threatening me and my safety.

I first need to clarify the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation entails falsehoods being promulgated. Misinformation is broader, and includes people being misinformed for a variety of reasons.

In my first post, I listed a number of bad things that disinformation led to. You focused narrowly on the personal responsibilty of the individuals who acted. You correctly noted that the disinformation wasn't necessary and sufficient for the act to occur. I didn't dispute that, but I pointed it that it was a NECESSARY condition for those acts. Edgar, the Pizzagate shooter, never would have done it had the disinformation not existed.

That doesn't excuse Edgar from his crime. It doesn't mean his personal responsibility for his act is less important than the lie. But it's still the case that this bit of disinformation was a necessary condition for Edgar's act to occur. I don't see how you can rationally deny that.

It seems that the obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it.

Ideas should be exposed to criticism by default, not taken at face value by default. Question everything. It is those that don't question what they read and hear that end up causing more harm than those that do.

It seems pretty simple to me that the obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it. — Harry Hindu

Why didn't free speech prevent a man from shooting his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement?

It's a combination of free speech and questioning authority. It seems to me that a man that shoots his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement didn't question the source of the information he received.

Whatever the man read probably just reinforced some idea he already had and a reason to engage in the violent tendencies he already had brewing within him.

Before I would take such drastic action, I would want to verify the source and legitimacy of the claims being made. How about you?

Well, it should have been clear because I linked to the post I was replying to, as I always do.

I agree that it was a necessary condition to the event. So is air, water, guns, and pizza. I disagree that it contributed to the event you mentioned and therefor ought to be minimized.

It seems that obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it.

Ideas should be exposed to criticism by default, not taken at face value by default. Question everything. It is those that don't question what they read and hear that end up causing more harm than those that do. — Harry Hindu

It's a combination of free speech and questioning authority. It seems to me that a man that shoots his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement didn't question the source of the information he received.

Whatever the man read probably just reinforced some idea he already had and a reason to engage in the violent tendencies he already had brewing within him.

Before I would take such drastic action, I would want to verify the source and legitimacy of the claims being made. How about you? — Harry Hindu

So, in the case of fascists posing a real threat to the government, we should allow news outlets and public figures to propagate dangerous, subversive lies - and they would be dangerous - because you think people ought to question everything they hear? Do you think you imploring us on a philosophy forum to not take things at face value could actually have an effect on the people predisposed via conditioning to acting violently on the lies they hear? Do you think they would apply even the miniscule amount of rigor you mustered up to formulate your vapid responses to engaging with the truth of why they should do what they are told to do by their dear leader?

Do you think many Nazis asked for citations when Hitler claimed Jews were parasites on the German people in the 1939 Reichstag Speech? Did they critically examine the reasoning for his prediction that another world war would see the elimination of the Jewish race in Europe?

Claiming to not care about dis/mal/mis/information is kind of silly.
Think you can get on without? Can deduce it all from something else? Exclusively trust yourself?
There are whatever varieties and degrees; we might assess some by intent and consequences when taken seriously.
So, we strike a balance of sorts between freedom and disincentive.

I haven't suggested any actions (yet). I was just pointing out that more free speech doesn't address the problem...and also that the problem is very real.

Well, it should have been clear because I linked to the post I was replying to, as I always do. — NOS4A2

The last sentence in the quote was my question: "do you disagree?" You responded. "I do not".

I agree that it was a necessary condition to the event. So is air, water, guns, and pizza. I disagree that it contributed to the event you mentioned and therefor ought to be minimized. — NOS4A2

So you believe Edgar would have driven to the Pizza Parlor and shot it up even if he'd never heard the falsehood. That's irrational.