INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID: a962d4ea
REPLY: <20240209115134.e6c9ecfca74018983e135088@eircom.net> dfdd9d7c
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
On 09/02/2024 11:51, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> How much disinformation should we tolerate in the interests of free
> speech?
There is an old Latin quote. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?
It means "Who will guard the guardians?".
And it turns any argument about limiting disinformation into a cat
belling exercise.
To put it simply, who do we trust to decide what is disinformation and
what is not? Politicians? Doan make me larf. They are the biggest liars
along with lawyers and media stars that exist.
The problem is that in many cases people sincerely believe they are
telling the truth, in other cases people say they sincerely believe that
they are telling the truth, while other people claim they are lying or
sincerely *believe* they are lying or in fact can prove it.
This buggers muddle is the core of today's information wars, in which
nothing is fact, everything is opinion and commercial propaganda, and
what you believe is down to who you believe, and the art is to carefully
craft the bullshit and use someone who you respect to spoonfeed it to you.
So sports starts and hollywood icons become 'experts' in sociology and
meteorology and climatology.
Jane Fonda had nice tits, but what the fuck did she know about
*anything* beyond making soft porn movies.
Is there a solution? Yes, but its a very hard one. I for example know
for a *fact*, because it is entirely within my skill and knowledge set,
that renewable energy will never ever be a satisfactory replacement for
fossil fuels, but that nuclear power could be. I know that because of a
three year university course in electrical engineering. Plus several
years as financial director of two IT businesses. I can do accounting
sums and I can do engineering. The two together damn renewables to oblivion.
But to anyone who hasn't had that background, all that amounts to in
their eyes is just my *opinion* - that *could* be wrong. They lack the
intelligence and the concentration to follow the complex logical chains.
They are simply too lazy and not too bright, so its far EASIER to simply
'believe in someone else'.
In short controlling disinformation isn't even a matter of knowing you
are right, its a matter of convincing other people, and I haven't got
big enough tits .
People need to learn to distinguish obvious crap from less obvious crap,
and research the less obvious crap and learn about it enough to make -
not an informed decision - anyone can be 'informed' by a liar or a
propagandist - but a *reasoned* decision.
People who can't shouldn't be allowed to vote BUT
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?
Who decides that? Just another fallible and corruptible human being?
Ultimately we shouldn't even *try* to limit what people say. We should
provide an education that doesn't brainwash and teach people *what* to
think but teaches people *how* to think.
Logic, philosophy, metaphysics...these are the hand tools you need to
disentangle facts from bullshit, and reasoned arguments from emotional
bullshit.
Teach them at age 5. They are not hard.
--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 15/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 128/260 129/305 135/225
SEEN-BY: 153/757 7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 226/17
SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 112 113 200 206 307 317 400 426
SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038
SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364
SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100
SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5058/104 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426
|
