People who believe misinformation is scary seem highly retarded to me.

It's not scary it's enjoyable. Better to be a happy retard than a miserable fraudulent peddler of "truth" or a Zucked up "trusted news initiative" fact checker, what a joke.

Information is the base level of reality below quantum fields. It encompasses bullshit too so it's impossible to separate out a category of information that is outside of the other set "real information" - that's absurd and I don't trust the motherfuckers putting that garbage out. There is no such reason to fear misinformation just like there is no Dark Matter / Dark Energy - how do these retards plan to prove that the artifacts are part of the nefarious "bad information" as if the stuff had a north or south pole clearly visible. Intentionally misleading content is still content, it's just that it's not true, and yes there is political propaganda, fake cover stories, and cover ups that might qualify. That's different though. People generally don't go shouting untrue information at full volume to all their friends and family - why would they? People talk bullshit at high volume because they believe its true not because they believe it's false.

#freejulianassange

Even if there was such a thing, call it "untrue facts" or whatever, this abstract substance is just a subset of a greater more encompassing set: all information. And rather than some figment of the imagination, anti-matter is real proven stuff. It's not anti-information. The actual criminal content is already illegal and does not need extra treatment. The proposed or perceived negative effects of these thoughts or ideas is exactly what? Vaccine hesitancy? That is a good outcome - 1. fools rush in it took 5 years to understand what the side-effects of Thalidomide are, 2. It's a leaky vaccine, not like normal sterilizing vaccines and should only be given to those at risk, not children. 3. It converts people into super-spreader viral body shedding "virus evolution environments".

I watched the Berg beheading video... sure, it is one of those "what has been seen, can not be unseen" moments.

Lets say the Christchurch mosque shooting as an example of a negative effect of information, let's say a result of the Al Quada mind virus that led to the world trade centres being hit by planes... well it's not really misinformation is it? 9/11 Was a real event best I can tell. How you gonna suppress that? Do you reckon you could prove that harm came from some leak from whistleblower? Bigotry and racial hatred is not "information". The Christchurch attack wasn't even terrorism, it would an Australia nutter who acted alone, and did not have "a message" or threat that others from his cell could act on, unlike Osama Bin Laden, who had been trying to bomb that place since all through the nineties - remember the basement carpark bomb? Facts tend to have half-lives. Consider Newton's theory of gravity usurped by Einstein. Or that the sun always rises in the East. It won't always do that. As Socrates once said: Wisest is he who claims no knowledge. People who claim to know the truth and what is right and wrong are fools.

I tend to agree with the analysis of SOYEON Lim, available in this pdf:

Some contend that the media has a right of editorial
judgement, which is an exercise of the broader right to free speech in
the mass media context. For example, the print media has a right to
determine what photographs and text will comprise articles in the
absence of positive legal restrictions. The United States Supreme
Court has held that this right stems from the personal right to free
speech, rather than being a special journalistic right. The First
Amendment precludes the government from exercising prior restraint
on speech and shields the press from retaliation over what gets
published. Unlike the individual right to free speech, the media’s
freedom is ethically limited by the obligation to serve the public.
Publications must, therefore, be linked to seeking truth, or constitute
an opinion or criticism related to this goal.

...

The Unique Value of Visual Accounts

Sharing the disturbing visual content of the video could be justifiable
if it had informative value. Often, raw and unsanitised images taken
on the scene and published by the media become icons of significant
events. Ethical principles direct the media to publish all information
that adds value to the truth-seeking process, including fearlessly
identifying and using original sources (where possible) without
distortion. The right images can show in detail what really happened,
something which words alone cannot truly convey. 96 In particular, a
first-hand visual account can communicate the impact of something,
which is not always imaginable via words.
Graphic and violent images have informative value when the
violence in itself has meaning and is directly connected to the truth
sought by the media.

 

Well, I got some unsanitised visual information for ya right now ya bastard: How about footage of Tiananmen Square Massacre where maybe up to 10,000 lost their lives... leaving a messy human mince meat left behind after the Communist bastards tanks rolled "tank man" and helpless female students were bayoneted to death.

Posted by tomachi on November 4th, 2022 filed in Rants