Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Common sense really isn't that difficult, nor is being a decent person without being ingratiating.
Good actors go into dialogue*, they address the idea: "Hey. I don't agree with your argument X because Y. What do you think about compromise Z?"
Bad actors rant, they attack the person, and deliberately use fallacies: "Only idiots believe X. Two plus two equals fish so only Z is true. If anything else, the world explodes."
Disinformation is when a bad actor maliciously spreads information they know is false to further their or someone's agenda. Misinformation is when an unsuspecting benign reader absorbs that information and spreads it. The latter happens more than the former.
What is true or false can be discerned with the scientific method: experiments, statistical analysis, et cetera, and most importantly reproducibility of said results because mistakes obviously do occur.
What are valid or invalid arguments can be discerned with logic—mathematical reasoning basically. Unfortunately most people suck at or dislike math because the archaic education system does it a disservice by subtracting from it all the fascination.
To answer your question, because I think your phrasing implies the verity of most information is "arbitrary", subjective, it's not. "Drop a feather and it's gonna fall." Truth. "Dogs are plants." False. The majority of politics isn't much different, but due to the amount of misinformation/misunderstanding, it creates the illusion as if it is. Politics is about policy making on things based in physical reality which can be objectively studied. That is, in an ideal society, where politicians aren't corrupted by greed and don't succumb to lobbying from the ultrarich parasites on top. Find out who has the most money and one will see who has the most manipulative power.
*Comparing debate, discussion and dialogue:
So any passionate actor is a bad actor. Which is necessary for wrong information to be disinformation according to your definition.
I will argue that a disinformation campaign could find agents that are able to remain calm and engage in 'polite' debate (via training, scripts and other forms of support, perhaps AI can help write some posts/articles etc). Meanwhile ordinary users are more likely to lose their cool when presented with propaganda even if it is well presented.
I am also going to address you suggesting that I believe most information is "arbitrarily" subjective. I don't. The issue is that of course we cannot actually apply the scientific method in a lot of cases, including news and politics.
For example either the US attacked first or Iran did in the most recent case. How would one apply the scientific method to find out? In a lot of cases there is simply not enough data accessible to people.
Even in science, both physical and especially social ones we have this issue. We don't really do experiments on whole countries etc.
I think you are handwaving away the issue. I am sure you know who the bad actors are and what is disinformation.