To me, "misinformation" means a mistake. Not remembering something correctly, having out of date information, or being taught something that isn't true. Given what I see going on in the news, in...
To me, "misinformation" means a mistake. Not remembering something correctly, having out of date information, or being taught something that isn't true.
Given what I see going on in the news, in politics, and in social media I think the more appropriate word is "disinformation". Intentionally propagating false information.
I agree with your definition, but we're at the point of no return with the term. I used to be annoyed with people calling their pre-teen brother who got access to their Facebook account via sticky...
I agree with your definition, but we're at the point of no return with the term.
I used to be annoyed with people calling their pre-teen brother who got access to their Facebook account via sticky note taped to a monitor as a "hacker." But I learned you have to give up when a word is rampantly misused.
Yes, that ship has sailed. I've had similar experiences really hating the word has been misused, then after many years of torturing myself learned to accept it and move on. :--)
Yes, that ship has sailed.
I've had similar experiences really hating the word has been misused, then after many years of torturing myself learned to accept it and move on. :--)
Although there are certainly people like that out there, I don't think it's a good default to assume ill intent in any specific case. What do we know about the state of mind of some random...
Although there are certainly people like that out there, I don't think it's a good default to assume ill intent in any specific case. What do we know about the state of mind of some random stranger on the Internet?
So, perhaps "misinformation" is a better default choice?
Having said that, the article I shared does make speculative claims about the state of mind of strangers on the Internet. Perhaps it's better thought of as a question: what if misinformation is mostly about maintaining beliefs?
A useful perspective. Instead of changing minds, disinformation actively prevents the existing believers from changing their minds. One of the things we're seeing for the last decade is an...
A useful perspective. Instead of changing minds, disinformation actively prevents the existing believers from changing their minds. One of the things we're seeing for the last decade is an increase in a kind of super-intense true believer, so I'm tempted to say that matches.
On the other hand, someone who self-identifies as centrist or politically unengaged can be given a very wrong impression of what the "neutral" position is on a given topic. It takes a different kind of misinformation to do it, but I think we're seeing a lot of that kind of targeting as well.
From the article: Although most obvious on the right, it's not limited to them: ... ... ...
From the article:
Mountains of ink and millions of research dollars have been spent on the idea that misinformation is primarily used as persuasion — to generate belief change. Most lab work in the area of belief designs experiments that show people misinformation (or corrections) and then sees if their beliefs have changed. But as I noted back in November 2016, the primary use of “misinformation” is not to change the beliefs of other people at all. Instead, the vast majority of misinformation is offered as a service for people to maintain their beliefs in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In other words, it’s copium. And you see that here. The presidential race has suddenly changed, and a deep-seated belief of many on the right is under attack.
Although most obvious on the right, it's not limited to them:
At the same time many on the right were examining Harris rally footage like the Zapruder film, many on the left were circulating images of what looked like a mostly empty Trump rally in Bozeman, Montana to advance the claim that Trump’s campaign is falling apart. A good portion of that “evidence” of Trump’s collapse consisted of videos from very early in the event before the venue had filled up — which of course is no evidence at all.
...
[The most honest option is to...] [o]wn up that you position is vibes-based, so you can be shown a dozen photos like this and you won’t believe it. But that comes with some social approbation. We’re not supposed to be biased, and when we advance beliefs publicly, we are expected to supply reasons we believe those, and address the reasons that others advance against our position.
...
We are horribly biased individuals. But as the evidence mounts against our position it becomes increasingly time-consuming to maintain. As an ex-smoker, I know this well. I’ve lived it in big ways. But I’ve lived it in small ways too, as we all have.
And these small ways add up. Crowd size may seem a stupid fixation, for instance. But if you look at the beliefs of many election deniers you’ll find that “crowds as evidence” is a core part of the belief system.
...
Does misinformation mostly reinforce what we already believe? Of course. But that doesn’t mean it’s any less harmful. A democratic republic requires discourse environments that prompt people to be honest with themselves, and soften beliefs that lack strong unidirectional evidence, or let go of beliefs that become indefensible over time.
To me, "misinformation" means a mistake. Not remembering something correctly, having out of date information, or being taught something that isn't true.
Given what I see going on in the news, in politics, and in social media I think the more appropriate word is "disinformation". Intentionally propagating false information.
I agree with your definition, but we're at the point of no return with the term.
I used to be annoyed with people calling their pre-teen brother who got access to their Facebook account via sticky note taped to a monitor as a "hacker." But I learned you have to give up when a word is rampantly misused.
Yes, that ship has sailed.
I've had similar experiences really hating the word has been misused, then after many years of torturing myself learned to accept it and move on. :--)
Literally me (I'm sorry I had to and I feel you can'thave a discussion about the meaning of words changing without mentioning literally)
I'm literally surprised how long people have been saying that. I thought it would have faded away by now.
Disinformation is the Russian agent posting the deep faked video to Facebook.
Misinformation is your uncle sharing that same video.
Although there are certainly people like that out there, I don't think it's a good default to assume ill intent in any specific case. What do we know about the state of mind of some random stranger on the Internet?
So, perhaps "misinformation" is a better default choice?
Having said that, the article I shared does make speculative claims about the state of mind of strangers on the Internet. Perhaps it's better thought of as a question: what if misinformation is mostly about maintaining beliefs?
Sometimes it's not false per se, it's just cherry picked or deceptively framed, or deliberately worded in a way that's certain to be misunderstood.
Cherry picking, deceptively framing is about intent to deceive and that makes it disinformation in my opinion.
A useful perspective. Instead of changing minds, disinformation actively prevents the existing believers from changing their minds. One of the things we're seeing for the last decade is an increase in a kind of super-intense true believer, so I'm tempted to say that matches.
On the other hand, someone who self-identifies as centrist or politically unengaged can be given a very wrong impression of what the "neutral" position is on a given topic. It takes a different kind of misinformation to do it, but I think we're seeing a lot of that kind of targeting as well.
From the article:
Although most obvious on the right, it's not limited to them:
...
...
...