It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you get a pass if you are yelling “Fire” because you are certain there are cell phone jammers in the theater that are setting your brain on fire

    Yes. Anyone in good faith attempting to warn others of any potential harm that they believe to be true to the best of their abilities should have their speech protected.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Anyone in good faith attempting to warn others of any potential harm that they believe to be true to the best of their abilities

      But what if their beliefs are verifiably false? I don’t mean that in a sense of a religious belief, which cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. I mean that the facts are clear that there are no 5G nanoparticles in the vaccine for cell phone jammers to interfere with in the first place. That isn’t even a thing.

      It’s one thing to allow for tolerance of different opinions in public. It’s another thing entirely to misrepent things that can be objectively disproven as true, just because you’ve tied it to a political movement. Can that really still be considered to be in good faith?

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          One is the insidious things about misinformation is that it always starts with pieces that can’t be proven one way or the other. The Lab Leak theory is a perfect example, since there happens to be a lab in the same city as where the virus was first found. But many of the people who were pushing the theory were then extending it to “The Chinese made a bioweapon on purpose”, which was not supported by any facts at all, and was serving a political agenda.

          Later, when some studies came out that couldn’t disprove the lab leak theory in its entirety, some used that as justification in saying that the Chinese bioengineered it, when that’s not at all what those studies said. But they use that kernel to try and prove the whole corny premise.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But what if their beliefs are verifiably false?

        Yes. Because those with perverse incentives in power will falsify the truth to punish critics.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So there is no objective truth anymore, and any fact you don’t like can be dismissed by saying the Deep State is at fault? Is there a (((conspiracy))) to hide the fact that the Moon is really an egg?

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are objective truths, the issue lays in the deciding of them. Not to step on your cloak and dagger but I’m not saying we’ve got a ‘deep state’ or there’s some massive ((((conspiracy with too many parentheses)))).

            The Earth may be round but I don’t want to have to worry about a flat earther judge ruling otherwise each time I say it.

    • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wrote a comment about this earlier today. People who have been brainwashed to believe total nonsense often act in ways that are rational to them, but irrational to people who see the world through different eyes.

      That’s fine until it’s violent action.

      The alcoholic who thinks he’s “fine to drive” believes he’s perfectly rational. He’s drunk all the time and no accidents. That’s wonderful until he kills a family some night.