Let's define Disinformation

@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.

@eintaluj said
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.

@moonbus said
You would have to prove intent, not merely content filtering, for it to count as disinformation. Presenting only one side of a story is not yet disinformation, if there is no intent to deceive.


Disambiguation: MISinformation is reporting something not true, but without intent to deceive.

@vivify said
The conservatives on this site have claimed many times that social media sites ban right-wing content they "disagree" with, when the criteria was actually based on factual inaccuracies.

For example, Twitter has banned users who spread false or misleading anti-vaccination information about Covid. In each case the reasons for bans were purely fact based like (as evidenced b ...[text shortened]... s.

Hence, why I had to make clear that "misinformation" is not merely a view one disagrees with.

@sh76 said
You obviously don't engage much in the Twitter covid world.

things are slowly changing now, but a few months ago, people who Tweeted things like "It doesn't seem like vaccination is worth the myocarditis risk for healthy teens" routinely had their Tweets restricted, banned or slapped with a misinformation label.

The same happened all the time when people said things like I ...[text shortened]... h the risks, but it's not a clear-cut issue and censoring one side of the debate is a terrible idea.

@sh76 said
people who Tweeted things like "It doesn't seem like vaccination is worth the myocarditis risk for healthy teens" routinely had their Tweets restricted, banned or slapped with a misinformation label.

The same happened all the time when people said things like Ivermectin may be a good idea for early covid treatment.

While both statements may not be objectively verifiable, they should hardly be counted as misinformation.

@jj-adams said
I like that definition very much.
It perfectly describes our current democrat party and the lickspittle leftist US media.

@mghrn55 said
A rather silly remark.
Someone on this site can pull up the numbers here in terms of the number of state laws that have been passed so far in limiting election voting.

The premise of these laws ?
That the 2020 election was a fraud.

A textbook example of misinformation leading to the (legislative) consequences that have come to pass.

@jj-adams said
Nobody is limiting people from voting.
They are preventing voter fraud, nothing more.

@JJ-Adams
The voter fraud already uncovered AND convicted were all republicans. Maybe 10 or so. Real big haul, so lets get rid of voting completely and go authoritarian like republicans are fixing to do to democracy if they win.

@eintaluj said
I am talking about the consumer of information, not about the intent of the one who is providing the information.

The extended sense of disinformation provided included not only false statements but also irrelevant statements, even if true.

I agreed, but I added that in this extended sense, not only the irrelevant excess information is disinformation, but also the re ...[text shortened]... of proof be on the users of the platform. It follows that your definition does not work in practice.

@vivify said
Unverifiable claims can still be misinformation if used as anti-vax propaganda.

Nikki Minaj tweeted that a relative had damaged genitalia and impotence after being vaccinated. Fox News and other right-wing media outlets jumped on the tweet made it go viral, and started using that tweet as anti-vax propaganda.

The fallout from that tweet was so serious that the UK gov ...[text shortened]... ny people went unvaccinated as a result of that unverified tweet, which in turn helped spread Covid.

@eintaluj said
Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter banned even articles from solid medical journals. Politicians and official medical experts ignored or labelled as "disinformation" articles published in "The Lancet" or "British Medical Journal".

Hey, @Wildgrass. Explain this.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/[WORD TOO LONG].wk3uj7HaIsgr8-oPrNXrF0PLzShFgxr7-6UyRCrymoM&s=r

"Most immunocompromised people are not at high risk from COVID. Immunocompromised people existed before covid and will always exist. Covid is a flu level risk to kids who aren’t vaccine-eligible - we’ve always accepted such risk. And many, if not most kids have immunity already."

This Tweet got its author SUSPENDED from Twitter for a week.

The entire Tweet is indisputably true, except for the middle claim which is probably true but is arguable.

Yesterday, a health professional with over 7,500 followers posted:

COVID is like HIV / AIDS. Except worse.

1. Both have acute & long phase

2. Acute COVID way worse (attenuated if vaxxed)

3. COVID is airborne

4. EVERYONE is at risk

5. COVID affects ALL systems, not just immune system

6. Long CoVID attacks in days/weeks, not 6 to 10 years

@sh76 said
"Most immunocompromised people are not at high risk from COVID. Immunocompromised people existed before covid and will always exist. Covid is a flu level risk to kids who aren’t vaccine-eligible - we’ve always accepted such risk. And many, if not most kids have immunity already."

This Tweet got its author SUSPENDED from Twitter for a week.