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.

That’s right. And as John Milton argued, the censors deny themselves (and others) the opportunity to see falsity collide with truth. By giving the authorities the right to determine truth and historical fact, they push for the stupidity of mankind.

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

That’s misinformation. You last sentence in the post to which I disagreed was “ So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?”

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.

Nope. I believe it didn’t cause him to.

That’s misinformation. You last sentence in the post to which I disagreed was “ So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?” — NOS4A2

You're wrong. Here's the entirety of the post:

↪Relativist

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. — 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.

Nope. I believe it didn’t cause him to. — NOS4A2

You're being evasive. I agreed that under a strict definition of cause as that which is necessary and sufficient to resultvin the effect , the disinformation was not the cause. If you read carefully, you'd know that was not on dispute. And yet you repeated the assertion that the disformation didn't cause it.

I have repeatedly asked you if you agreed the information was a necessary condition. You have not clearly answered that. Your "nope" seemed to imply that you do not believe Edgar would have shot up the Pizza Parlor.

You started this thread, so its odd that you seem to want to avoid serious discussion.

And as John Milton argued, the censors deny themselves (and others) the opportunity to see falsity collide with truth. By giving the authorities the right to determine truth and historical fact, they push for the stupidity of mankind. — NOS4A2

Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation.

One wonders how it is that the authorities in this instance are immune to misinformation and false beliefs. Presumably some official will peruse misinformation just as anyone else, and therefor are at the very same risk of forming false beliefs as the rest of us, so it makes little sense to give some and not everyone the power to judge the veracity of information on their own accord. And given that falsity and false beliefs have been with us since the beginning, one wonders of its increasing criminalization as of late. Perhaps worse, our betters have never been that adept at disseminating the truth, historically producing its opposite on an industrial scale. — NOS4A2

I think the problem here is that you're focusing on the content, the false or misleading statement, when the actual reason to worry about misinformation is the media environment.

It's no surprise that you approach the topic from the angle of the content, since unfortunately a lot of the reporting on the topic does the same thing - focusing on the content as the problem.

But the real problem with misinformation, what's "new" about it, is that it's become easier and more profitable to sell false information to people. Tailored media "feeds" (a rather appropriate term) create incentives that are very different from those of a traditional print or broadcast medium.

There have always been peddlers of misinformation, for various reasons, be it purely commercial (e.g. the traditional yellow press) or political. However, these could not be targeted, other than by subscription services, which meant that a publication needed to either have mass appeal or some other distribution channel to overcome the barrier of entry into a subscription.

Mass appeal acts like a filter for misinformation just in the way you like to think of more speech combatting false information: when exposed to a wide audience, it's likely that it's spotted and this will generally make the publication less favoured. So in a traditional medium there's an incentive to keep your reporting reasonably grounded in a shared understanding of the facts.

But today misinformation can be effectively targeted. It can thus influence a person's views without needing to be internally consistent for any other recipient. People can stitch together their views from disparate pieces which will overlap in some areas yet wildly disagree in others. The effect of this is quite visible in modern populist movements from COVID to climate change.

So it's not that misinformation has suddenly become more dangerous in and of itself or that people require a paternalistic guardian. It's that the truth has trouble surviving the modern media environment, and if there's no-one to help it do so we risk our societies atomising into various bubbles. We're already pretty far along that path and it's symptoms are quite visible: political gridlock, an increase in politically motivated violence, intolerance of differing views.

That to me is a more interesting and balanced outlook, so thanks for writing it.

I like your idea that truth has trouble surviving in the modern media environment. No doubt that's true; but I think it's true of all media environments. The adage that "Falsehood flies and the Truth comes limping after it" is quite old.

One thing that is increasingly modern is the exponential growth in the sheer amount of information, true or false. None of us are equipped to deal with all of it, assess it this way or that at all times, because we couldn't read all of it in the first place. It isn't long before we start to receive it through less-than-reputable sources like Uncle John and Nancy Sinatra. I'm more on the hopeful side and believe we'll adapt, but it would be a shame if some would attempt to deny us this opportunity.

I don’t know how I’m being evasive; I’m telling you everything I believe.

We agree on the necessary condition. We disagree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring, and that it would be good to minimize it. Then for some reason you wanted me to explain why I was denying disinformation was a necessary condition for these acts to occur, right after I said I do not disagree with you. It's just confusing, is all.

I do have a problem with that. The consequences of speech, for instance, is air and sound coming out of the mouth. To be fair, I'm willing to subject myself to a test if you wish to promote your harm theory. Let's see which injuries you can inflict on me with your speech. — NOS4A2

That speech has casual power beyond air vibrations is trivially obvious. Smart home systems are a clear modern example. Or, train a child to believe X, and that child will likely believe X, with all the consequences belief X entails.

It is up to you to demonstrate why speech in the case of misinformation is somehow not casual. I don't like your chances.

Actually all air vibrations, including non-speech, are transduced into electrical energy in modern smart-home systems. In the case of speech recognition It is the software that filters out the speech from the non-speech sounds. So the speech has no more causal power than any other sound.

If I read the phrase “the earth is flat” one-hundred times, and after I’m done tell you the earth is in fact not flat, will that suffice as a demonstration?

We agree on the necessary condition. We disagree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring... — NOS4A2

It was bad that Edgar shot up the Pizzeria.
A necessary condition for this occuring was his hearing the disinformation.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?

If I read the phrase “the earth is flat” one-hundred times, and after I’m done tell you the earth is in fact not flat, will that suffice as a demonstration? — NOS4A2

That's just a counter-example to a universal statement like "all speech acts are taken to be true by everyone".
Similarly, "no utterings are taken seriously by anyone" is also false.
Rather, as has been argued a few times, some talk is believed by some. It's common, daily.
I'd take it to be true if you claimed to be a globe-Earth'er (though your personal belief isn't all that consequential in this context).

What is the point of your comments, really? — NOS4A2

What's your best guess?

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? — ToothyMaw

It seems to me that the ability to question authority would limit news organizations from propagating lies because they would be shown time and again to be reporting falsehoods and they would eventually go out of business.

It is when we lose the right to question authority that authoritarians take over.

Are there people that are unable to think critically? Sure. Just look at this forum. If we were to make critical thinking a bigger part of society's education then that could help in limiting how many are enthralled by propaganda.

It also seems to me that abolishing political parties would eliminate the group-think that individuals are exposed to. When people find it hard to think for themselves they look to the group to think for them and then regurgitate what the group authority espouses. Take that away and people will be forced to think more for themselves, and the news organizations wouldn't have a team to play on.

So giving people the power to think critically, to question authority and speak freely would defeat any effort to propagandize individuals.

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. — Relativist

The right to question authority is a type of free speech.

The right to question authority is a type of free speech — Harry Hindu

Of course, but there has been an unhealthy trend toward treating expert opinion as no more credible than the opinion of a blogger on the internet- especially among Republicans. See: https://www.axios.com/2023/05/28/misinformation-science

Questioning authority is healthy. Countering it with disinformation is not.

Axios is a left-leaning source of information. It seems to me that both sides engage in misinformation equally and reject science when it is politically expedient. Many Democrats have rejected biological facts regarding sex.

What really sucks is the level of politicization that has infiltrated society today. It's as if most people view every aspect of life through a political lens. I haven't seen any politician from either side as something to get excited for, or to revolve my life around. It's as if the powers that be are instigating a civil war by shoving politics down our throats every chance they get.

Here's an idea: how about we take campaigning for a position of power out of the equation? Impose term limits on Congress. Since politicians and liars are synonymous then why even put a microphone in front of a politician's face? Politicians should just run on their records not their words.

Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation. — Relativist

Yes, to have the collision between 'truth and falsity' as described by Milton requires a shared secular space where the autonomous person is allowed to persist within. The freedom from authority is not a self-evident condition because authority has different dimensions. Consider the language of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — U.S. Constitution

This list of what cannot be legislated starts off with a powerful source of authority in its own right. This permits different groups of people to teach their children as they please. If this process is not to dissolve into the despotism the amendment struggles to avoid, there must be a countervailing agency of education that will preserve secular freedom. How to do that without establishing another tyrannical authority is the fundamental challenge of democracy in our Republic. The secular is not an order that replaces all others but is a form of participation that stops when enough people stop participating. As Eliot said: "We are the music, while the music lasts."

In our short history, the 'Government' has given plenty cause for the petitions of grievances. The possibility for a democracy is the possibility that the secular spirit is still alive amongst those who serve it. Keeping open the space for personal autonomy is a continual struggle.

Over the years, the author of this OP has maintained that the existence of "states" is not the result of a process of human development within the dynamic of many conflicting agencies. It is, instead, an idea that infected the world when enough people started sharing it. By the criteria of the First Amendment, this makes the entity essentially theocratic. This is a withdrawal from any shared secular space where the causes of speech do not have to be adjudicated by abstruse logic. The imagined theocracy also abnegates the voice of the press. All appearances of culpability are washed away by gesturing to the dark cabal huddling just outside of the sensorium. The withdrawal from the space makes it impervious to any contradiction observed coming from it. Elvis has left the building.

Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation.
— Relativist — Paine

Censoring politicians, not everyone else. Politicians should just run on their records.

I understand the differentiation you wish to apply from your previous comments. My comment hoped to express my doubts that such should (or could) be applied directly as a measure of law.

In a society "governed by the people" and a Constitution designed to be amended, it is just a case of the will of the people to make such a change. The question is are we already to late? Is society still a society governed by the people, or by elitists that hold on to their power using any tactics necessary (spreading misinformation)? So your answer is just give the elitists more power to control the people? It should be the other way around - give the people more power to control their representatives. My answer is to use our free speech to debate the issues with others that think it is a good idea to keep going the way we are going or to just give up which is what you seem to be saying.

People here don't seem to realize that censorship and free speech are a double-edge sword. Start censoring one political side that you are not on sounds like a great idea but then what happens when the other side starts censoring your side? In a free-speech society, everyone has the same right. One's right to speak freely does not cancel another's right to speak freely. The solution comes about by debating the issues in an environment where everyone can speak their mind and logic and reason are the only determining factors in which idea wins out. Censorship just limits competitive ideas from being spoken. Power corrupts one into thinking that anyone that disagrees with them should be censored for the "greater good". All that does is stifle progress. So it is strange to see the ones that call themselves progressives are the ones advocating for censorship.

Axios is a left-leaning source of information. It seems to me that both sides engage in misinformation equally and reject science when it is politically expedient. .. — Harry Hindu

The Axios article linked to a Pew survey that showed Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mistrust scientists.

...Many Democrats have rejected biological facts regarding sex

I've never seen anyone denying the biological facts regarding sex. Are you perhaps referring to the trend to treat gender as a social role that can sometimes be inconsistent with biological sex?

What really sucks is the level of politicization that has infiltrated society today. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's unfortunate and it's exacerbated by the political parties. GOP leaders have to cater to their base by appealing to their anti-science trends and the embrace of conspiracy theories. In the process, they draw in more of the lunatic fringe - to which they will them endeavor to continue to court. The only remotely similar thing I see the Dems doing is to tiptoe around policies and attitudes toward transgenders.

Here's an idea: how about we take campaigning for a position of power out of the equation? Impose term limits on Congress. — Harry Hindu

Everyone gets one term? I'd support that, but it won't happen - it would take a constitutional amendment. I'd like to see critical thinking skills taught in schools- but I anticipate Christian groups would oppose it.

Rather, as has been argued a few times, some talk is believed by some. It's common, daily.

Despite the passive voice, this is what I’ve been saying all along. Some people believe some talk. This statement is completely accurate and I agree because it describes an act committed by the guilty party.

Misinformation does not have the power and abilities to harm society. But the believers in it do. So we worry about the believers in misinformation.

People here don't seem to realize that censorship and free speech is a double-edge sword. — Harry Hindu

Free speech has never meant the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want. Are laws against fraud and libel to be dispensed with because they infringe free speech?

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate?

So your answer is just give the elitists more power to control the people? — Harry Hindu

Not at all. The importance of education as it engages what each person and family consider most important is what shapes what gets to be public. The simple dichotomy of 'elites' and 'people' overlooks the desire to raise children as one deems best.

For example, I don't want to dismantle the Department of Education because it helps develop universal literacy and objective knowledge and keeps alive the difficulty of sharing history from many different stories of history. On the other hand, I don't want them to replace my role as a parent. And to do that, I accept that my autonomy means other parents will exercise the same right, even when their choices are wrong from my point of view. The matter of when other peoples' choices infringe upon mine is where the matter gets sticky and difficult to solve with a list of restrictions. Who shall guard the guardians?

Deepfake videos are becoming increasingly lifelike. 100% of them are unequivocal lies, so I suggest some level of governance over them is reasonable. For example: requiring a watermark identifying them as fakes. This wouldn't impede free speech, it would just require disclosure that the content isn't real.

The damage of fraudulent speech, as demonstrated through Common Law, is measured by its demonstrated result. The level of criminality that may be involved concerns the question of malicious intent. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote an excellent book about it. Those issues are different from the freedom from 'Government' as spoken of in the First Amendment. The Government cannot legislate against speech directed against itself. That is the meaning of the other ways listed such as the freedom of the press, the peaceful assembly of protest, or the petition of grievances.

It is a country mile from being permitted to pull anything one pleases out of their hind parts.

Why not just leave everyone alone instead of harming them and their work? It would be better for all of us.

Of course, but there has been an unhealthy trend toward treating expert opinion as no more credible than the opinion of a blogger on the internet- especially among Republicans. — Relativist

I wish I could say it is a rare occurence among 'philosophers'.

Why not just leave everyone alone instead of harming them and their work? It would be better for all of us. — NOS4A2

Such deepfakes are unequivocally a lie, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech. Identifying them for what they are benefits those of us who seek facts. So who's harmed by such a requirement? In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

The damage of fraudulent speech, as demonstrated through Common Law, is measured by its demonstrated result. The level of criminality that may be involved concerns the question of malicious intent — Paine

So you agree it's a reasonable infringement on free speech, because it can cause damage.

So far, I have made exactly one proposal: to require watermarking of deepfake videos, which are fraudulent by their nature. Do you agree this would be a reasonable step?