If it’s not about truth value, then it’s not about misinformation. It’s more about manipulation and the harmfulness of certain information, no?
My point is about the imperfections//limitations of language. If I say “the vaccine is safe”, how safe does it have to be for my statement to be true? Is an one-in-a-million risk a proof by contradiction, or is it evidence of safety? Where’s the cut-off for ‘safety’?
I do think fighting “bad-faith manipulation” is doable at times, but I don’t think you can label anything as being true/false for certain.
Another point, which I should have mentioned earlier, is that removing false information can be harmful. Better to let it stay along with the counter-arguments which are posted, so that observers can read both sides and judge for themselves. Believing in something false is a human right. Imagine, for isntance, if believing (or not believing) in god was actually illegal
If you actually want to fight misinformation you need to to more than focusing on single claims. You actually need to speak about a domain of knowledge in a trustworthy way instead of just making claims for propaganda purposes.
A list of experiences of people with specific journalists doesn’t give you certainty about the habits of the journalists but it’s better than nothing. Additionally, it can pressure the journalists into behaving better because they don’t want to be shamed.
If it’s not about truth value, then it’s not about misinformation. It’s more about manipulation and the harmfulness of certain information, no?
My point is about the imperfections//limitations of language. If I say “the vaccine is safe”, how safe does it have to be for my statement to be true? Is an one-in-a-million risk a proof by contradiction, or is it evidence of safety? Where’s the cut-off for ‘safety’?
I do think fighting “bad-faith manipulation” is doable at times, but I don’t think you can label anything as being true/false for certain.
Another point, which I should have mentioned earlier, is that removing false information can be harmful. Better to let it stay along with the counter-arguments which are posted, so that observers can read both sides and judge for themselves. Believing in something false is a human right. Imagine, for isntance, if believing (or not believing) in god was actually illegal
If you actually want to fight misinformation you need to to more than focusing on single claims. You actually need to speak about a domain of knowledge in a trustworthy way instead of just making claims for propaganda purposes.
A list of experiences of people with specific journalists doesn’t give you certainty about the habits of the journalists but it’s better than nothing. Additionally, it can pressure the journalists into behaving better because they don’t want to be shamed.