Categories of information like this are commonly used to say “this isn’t false, but we want to have an excuse to censor it anyway”. Look at how “malinformation” is already being misused.
Thank you for starting a discussion about this. I have two things to say:
1) In the post above, the “inftoxic” adjective means very much false, incorrect information. Additionally, it also means the falseness was intentionally “put in” the data or story with an intent to mislead, cause harm, etc. So, in fact, the term is different (and to me personally more useful) than the term “malinformation” (which I likewise find quite unhelpful).
2) Regardless of the usefulness of the terminology I used as an example, do you think that we could use new words in and around information, that could improve the way how we lead the debate in an attempt to be less wrong?
In the post above, the “inftoxic” adjective means very much false, incorrect information.
No, it doesn’t. You’ve defined it to include harmful and deceptive information, not (or at least not just) false information. And censors love to claim that true things that their political opponents say are “harmful” and “deceptive” because someone might listen to them and draw a conclusion that favors their political opponents.
This is a bad idea.
Categories of information like this are commonly used to say “this isn’t false, but we want to have an excuse to censor it anyway”. Look at how “malinformation” is already being misused.
Thank you for starting a discussion about this. I have two things to say:
1) In the post above, the “inftoxic” adjective means very much false, incorrect information. Additionally, it also means the falseness was intentionally “put in” the data or story with an intent to mislead, cause harm, etc. So, in fact, the term is different (and to me personally more useful) than the term “malinformation” (which I likewise find quite unhelpful).
2) Regardless of the usefulness of the terminology I used as an example, do you think that we could use new words in and around information, that could improve the way how we lead the debate in an attempt to be less wrong?
No, it doesn’t. You’ve defined it to include harmful and deceptive information, not (or at least not just) false information. And censors love to claim that true things that their political opponents say are “harmful” and “deceptive” because someone might listen to them and draw a conclusion that favors their political opponents.
The pronounceability would be improved with an extra vowel. “Infotoxic”, etc.