While I’m concerned about misinformation, I don’t really want to be – and don’t think anyone really wants me or any mod to be – the arbiter of truth.
Given that, two thoughts on how to deal with it:
First, anyone can reply to a post calling out misinformation, and replies are linked from the offending misinformation. There’s also an option to ‘reply as a linked topic’, so someone could start a new topic specific to adjudicating the truth of a piece of misinformation. That it leaves truth as a matter of discussion, though it doesn’t warn others very effectively.
Another option is to add a misinformation-specific emoji reaction. Reactions show up on the post, so an emoji that succinctly warn other users, and encourage them to check replies to the post for clarification.
I’m not aware of an emoji that is widely understood to mean “misinformation”, but a few candidates that come to mind:
I lean towards one of the ones that implies ‘warning’, since ideally it would always be used in conjunction with a reply that goes into some detail.
Since you made this topic in response to my flagging a post from Mr Authoritarian spreading fake information he knows to be fake, I would suggest the use of the red flag, or simply the already in use system of reporting the post spreading misinformation to the local police, ie, you, FJ, etc.
I know you value free exchange of ideas, but a user purposefully using information he knows can’t be true to make a point goes beyond freedom of speech. It’s the institution of the “anything goes” mentality of Telegram even in this remote place which you strive to keep as a forum for debating, not for conspiracy theorists who think they can say the most absurd things with impunity.
I agree, but ‘purposefully using information he knows can’t be true to make a point’ is a really high bar, right? If the person hasn’t outright said, “I know this is false but I am going to share it anyway”, how are we deciding that 1) it is false, and 2) he knows it’s false?
For example, in the case that generated your flag and this thread, the claims at issue were written and circulated by people much better versed in the subject matter than I am, and the response article you link spends roughly 1000 words (including screenshots and embedded media), refers to multiple other experts and dozens of pages of additional arguments and data.
After spending about ~15 minutes skimming the competing claims, it seems… plausible? It seems like there are smarter people than me both criticizing and endorsing the claim. I’m not well placed to decide whether it’s true, and I’m even less inclined to assume that someone making the claims knows it isn’t true, solely on the basis of them being smart enough to understand the claim.
I know that’s unsatisfying, because I agree that knowingly spreading false claims is beyond the principle of free speech. But a claim like this takes a lot of work to evaluate, and it seems there’s no consensus, even among seeming experts.
I’d be open to a more energetic response following something like a formal debate on the validity of a specific claim, which could lead to the post being flagged, the claim being hidden, and a link to the debate inserted.
But I don’t think I can or should make that determination on my own in most cases.
I’ve added the red flag emoji as an available reaction.
Though I think that the number of dead in Gaza couldn’t possibly be that high, you are right that you don’t possess the means to verify whether the info is true or not. It’s also hard to ascertain whether Mr. A. is 100% sure the data are fake or not.
Besides, the line between free speech and conscious spread of misinformation is tenuous. I have to admit that I would prefer if all people would avoid misinformation like the plague, but it’s a kind of addiction in the internet nowadays, where most seem only interested in whatever bit of information that might fit their own narrative.
History will show that the numbers in the Ukraine war and in Gaza were intentionally and selectively adjusted, as they were about WWII.
Victors write the history books…and this war has yet to be determined.
Yes, fake news like carpet bombing an area with 2.2 million people for over a year and the official death toll is only 70,000 reported by the Israeli government which we must assume are trustworthy people because they say so. I love how anything not approved by the Israeli government is fake news, false statistics, or slander, because they’re such a bastion of objective truth in everything, right? Surely they wouldn’t try to deceive us or the general public with political news war propaganda, right?
Well, it does seem like some people around here would trust the information of Israelis over Palestinians, and I find that very amusingly suspect.
Also, if you’re going to talk behind the backs of people at least have the decency to mention them inside a thread. It’s nice when the accused can face their accusers.
I don’t understand your position here. You seem to be taking the mere existence of the reaction as a personal attack, since it originated in an accusation that one of your posts contains misinformation. But the flag reaction is protective of posts like yours, posts that make claims of fact that are alleged to be false or dishonest. The reaction elevates accusations of dishonesty, but protects the ability to make unpopular claims of fact.
I take it you accept that lying exists, and that you think it’s bad. But you also want to make it harder to accuse people of lying or of spreading the lies of others? Why?
Knowing that the reaction was added as a way to allege that a post contains false claims, is applying it to posts indiscriminately a species of lying?
I don’t know if there’s a word for intentionally destroying the meaning of language through misuse, but it’s conceptually adjacent to lying, and seems wrong for similar reasons.
This entire thread is an attack on me because others here don’t like my viewpoints and instead of debate they want to red flag me for so called misinformation, in jest I red flag them as well for misinformation of accusing others (especially me) of misinformation. Seems only fair.
It’s no an attack on you, it’s in response to an attack on you.
And that response was to deny the requested remedy (removal of your post), to defend your right to say what you said.
Instead, this thread was intended to discuss ways to deal with the phenomenon of lying given that 1) individual intentions and underlying facts are often uncertain, and 2) people do often seek to suppress expression that they disagree with (both innocently and maliciously).
Having two children under the age of 10, I’m quite familiar with “nuh-uh, you are!” as a rhetorical technique.
While I think an accusation of lying is more likely to be a mistake than a lie, it can absolutely also be a lie, and my point here is that isn’t an accuse-MrAuthoritarian-of-lying flag, it’s an accuse-anyone-of-lying flag. So if you really do think someone is lying, go for it.
But you also used it on this post, which doesn’t accuse you of anything, and doesn’t make any claims of fact that you can honestly tell me you disagree with.
Which, fine, “jest”. Just seems like you actually care about lies, and a flag for lies elevates truth as an ideal while protecting the expression of unpopular claims of fact. You should be in favor of it.
“4: Alternative truth Every fascist lies a lot and without shame. Not in order to convince, but in order to take care that facts no longer matter. In order to suppress critical thinking in society, the fascist ultimately appropriates the meaning of language. He gags critics under the guise of ‘freedom of expression’… and calls anti-democratic precisely those who protect democracy.”
Fascism is back. Here’s how you recognize it (De Correspondent)
I haven’t used any red flags outside of this thread (except that one), so there’s that. Fine, I will abide by your ruling, but I will report to you any abuses that I come across.
Posts containing the word “negro”, among a handful of others, are held for approval because I don’t want a racist screed on public-facing parts of the site, or being included in a digest email. c.f. Nazi bar.
Posts are also held for new users, to prevent spam.
isn’t an accuse-MrAuthoritarian-of-lying flag, it’s an accuse-anyone-of-lying flag. So if you really do think someone is lying, go for it.
