Let's define Disinformation

@techsouth said
For example, if I were to assert that Rachel Levin is a woman, I have no chance of getting banned anywhere. But if I were to assert that Rachel is in fact a guy taking woman hormones, I could be banned (maybe even from RHP).

If you were banned for saying that, this wouldn't be considered misinformation. That would be an opinion that transwomen are still men (I'm talking gender, not sex). This isn't comparable to posting debunked anti-vaccine claims, which are issues of objective fact.

Somehow, the left can assert that the courts are unfair because minorities get more jail time than white people for the same crimes. But other than very rare examples, everyone who goes to jail actually committed the crime they were convicted for. So is bias a thing you can understand, or not?

This is another example of an opinion: "everyone who goes to jail actually committed the crime they were convicted for". There are many examples where this is not the case, and possibly a lot more that weren't able to be proven as such

Regardless, these are both opinions. The only way your opinion could be considered misinformation is if you use false, misleading or debunked claims to support your opinion.

@earl-of-trumps said
@vivify says -
For example, Trump continues to assert the election was "stolen" despite 60 U.S. courts dismissing his claims, including the mostly conservative Supreme court. Even his own government officials refuted his claims.
---------------------------

Vivify, it is one thing for a singular conservative, Donald Trump, to assert that falsehood about 2020 ...[text shortened]... s pontificate that the 2016 election was hacked by Russians and Trump.

And you'll never admit it.

Well yeah and The Mueller investigation
https://time.com/5340060/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-russia-meddling/
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46590890
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.......What your eyes see, your heart must believe

@earl-of-trumps said
@vivify says -
For example, Trump continues to assert the election was "stolen" despite 60 U.S. courts dismissing his claims, including the mostly conservative Supreme court. Even his own government officials refuted his claims.
---------------------------

Vivify, it is one thing for a singular conservative, Donald Trump, to assert that falsehood about 2020 ...[text shortened]... s pontificate that the 2016 election was hacked by Russians and Trump.

And you'll never admit it.

The FBI confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election. This objective fact. If you want to believe Trump himself didn't collude with foreign powers, fine. But you can't argue that Russia wasn't involved in helping Trump get elected.

@vivify said
If you were banned for saying that, this wouldn't be considered misinformation. That would be an opinion that transwomen are still men. This isn't comparable to posting debunked anti-vaccine claims, which are issues of objective fact.

[b]Somehow, the left can assert that the courts are unfair because minorities get more jail time than white people for the same crimes. But ...[text shortened]... onsidered misinformation is if you use false, misleading or debunked claims to support your opinion.

I noticed how you left out my preface "But other than very rare examples..." and then lectured me as if that wasn't part of my original claim.

You distinguish "opinion" and "misinformation" nicely. But you don't seem to understand that we have no objective arbitrator of truth. Politicians can label things "misinformation" and silence valid criticism, and they have done so throughout history. I got a 24-hour ban on Twitter for something totally bogus and had no recourse but to appeal to the same people that locked me out of my account. (I've never made threats on the Internet, nor harassed anyone, have not attacked vaccinations, nor even cussed on the Internet).

The FBI had 50 people that signed off on the claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was nothing but Russian "disinformation". (all this shortly before the election). Now even the NY Times admits it's real. You're living in a fantasy world if you think your distinction between "disinformation" and "opinion" will ever be fairly applied by biased human beings.

@techsouth said
I noticed how you left out my preface "But other than very rare examples..." and then lectured me as if that wasn't part of my original claim.

You distinguish "opinion" and "misinformation" nicely. But you don't seem to understand that we have no objective arbitrator of truth. Politicians can label things "misinformation" and silence valid criticism, and they have done ...[text shortened]... stinction between "disinformation" and "opinion" will ever be fairly applied by biased human beings.

Really? What is some 'hot' info
to come off Hunter's laptop recently?

@techsouth said
I noticed how you left out my preface "But other than very rare examples..." and then lectured me as if that wasn't part of my original claim.

Because those examples are not "rare". In the U.S. there are at least three exonerations for wrongful convictions per week:

https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/

Now if you want to argue that three people found each week to be wrongfully covicted (and that's just the ones we know of) is still "rare" compared to the total number of convictions, that's a matter of opinion, which is why I left it out. There's a saying that it's better to let nine guilty men go free than to let one innocent man be imprisoned. If you're someone who believes that, the wrongful conviction rate is far from "rare".

The FBI had 50 people that signed off on the claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was nothing but Russian "disinformation". (all this shortly before the election). Now even the NY Times admits it's real.

You're arguing that because conservatives, well-known for rampant misinformation, can occasionally be right about something, this invalidates the fact that they are indeed guilty of rampant misinformation.

Mistakes happen; and if mistakes are made with good intentions, like preventing misinformation, you don't then declare all attempts to block misinformation as dubious.

For every instance where conservative claims were wrongly labelled as misinformation, there are oceans patently false claims by their side. It's sad that it takes only *one* instance of getting something wrong for conservatives to scream persecution. Never mind Trump alone has 30,000 false claims during his presidency; if he says ONE thing turns out to be true, that's the only thing conservatives remember...that single instance when Trump turned out to be right...out of 30,000 false statements. So too with conservative misinformation in general.

BTW, here's the database with 30,000 false claims, if you were interested:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/

@averagejoe1 said
I think we might banter about this,, as it gets more attention. To start with, a Ms Jankowski has been named our minister of truth or some such (smacks of Orwell 1984!!). She is the person who stated quite clearly that the laptop was a hoax, which is disiinformation. She said that the Trump dossier was true, which is disinformation. The Queen of disinformation is the ...[text shortened]... he minister!!! Suzy says he lies, too!
Anyway, what is the forum definition of disinformation?

Lying, gaslighting and propaganda.

@averagejoe1 said
I think we might banter about this,, as it gets more attention. To start with, a Ms Jankowski has been named our minister of truth or some such (smacks of Orwell 1984!!). She is the person who stated quite clearly that the laptop was a hoax, which is disiinformation. She said that the Trump dossier was true, which is disinformation. The Queen of disinformation is the ...[text shortened]... he minister!!! Suzy says he lies, too!
Anyway, what is the forum definition of disinformation?

The truth is called disinformation so they can suppress it. Nobody needs to suppress lies. They collapse under their own weight sooner or later.

Suzi thinks Rachel Maddow tells the truth when she lies. Maddow said the vaccines stop the spread which is disinformation, but Jankowski has no intention of suppressing those lies.

This is an act of desperation. Their propaganda is not working anymore except suzi, sonhouse and the like. They want to believe the propaganda badly. They will accept the most absurd propaganda as long as it comes from a democrat.

@metal-brain said
This is an act of desperation. Their propaganda is not working anymore except suzi, sonhouse and the like. They want to believe the propaganda badly. They will accept the most absurd propaganda as long as it comes from a democrat.

It's called Doublethink.
Like how the Ministry of Plenty is telling us our economy has never been better and things are just great.

@vivify said
The FBI confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election. This objective fact. If you want to believe Trump himself didn't collude with foreign powers, fine. But you can't argue that Russia wasn't involved in helping Trump get elected.

It is interesting to note that in our time, there are still some people who believe in their own (or foreign) security services.

The definition of "disinformation" is indeed very simple: any fact that undermines the lies and conspiracy theories spread by the rulers is regarded as disinformation.

The fight against disinformation is the narrative management indeed. It is the management of public opinion.

@metal-brain said
The truth is called disinformation so they can suppress it. Nobody needs to suppress lies. They collapse under their own weight sooner or later.

Suzi thinks Rachel Maddow tells the truth when she lies. Maddow said the vaccines stop the spread which is disinformation, but Jankowski has no intention of suppressing those lies.

This is an act of desperation. Their pro ...[text shortened]... e propaganda badly. They will accept the most absurd propaganda as long as it comes from a democrat.

"The truth is called disinformation so they can suppress it. Nobody needs to suppress lies."

The first sentence is true. The second one is mistaken. Bot truth and lies will be suppressed if they threaten the official narrative.

@averagejoe1 said
I think we might banter about this,, as it gets more attention. To start with, a Ms Jankowski has been named our minister of truth or some such (smacks of Orwell 1984!!). She is the person who stated quite clearly that the laptop was a hoax, which is disiinformation. She said that the Trump dossier was true, which is disinformation. The Queen of disinformation is the ...[text shortened]... he minister!!! Suzy says he lies, too!
Anyway, what is the forum definition of disinformation?

Disinformation is anything, including truth, told in such a way as to deceive (or likely to deceive), with intent to deceive, or such a barrage of information that the truth can no longer be separated from the deception.

@eintaluj said
It is interesting to note that in our time, there are still some people who believe in their own (or foreign) security services.

I take it that you don't trust your government, then?

@moonbus said
Disinformation is anything, including truth, told in such a way as to deceive (or likely to deceive), with intent to deceive, or such a barrage of information that the truth can no longer be separated from the deception.

In that generalized sense, presenting only some facts and suppressing some other facts is also disinformation.

For example, presenting information only about the alleged war crimes of Russia and withholding the information about the alleged war crimes of Ukraine is disinformation.

It follows that nearly everything the Western mainstream media is publishing about the war in Ukraine is disinformation.

@vivify said
I take it that you don't trust your government, then?

It is too mild to say that I do not trust the official information spread by my government. The situation is much worse: I know that they are spreading false information for many years.