Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UniversalMomentum t1_j06qe9h wrote

Reply to comment by LouieMumford in Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination by Razariousnefarian

I disagree you should not mass distribue false information. It's just another form of fraud like posting fake stats on consumer electronics or bait and switch pricing.

If we had true freedom of speech fraud and threats would be legal cuz they are just harmless words, but the reality is that words are not always harmless when they are meant to mislead or threaten.

We don't need so much freedom of speech or press that fraud is legal and that’s the direction we’ve been going recently.

42

Idixal t1_j06zjy8 wrote

The difficult thing with making misleading information illegal is- who decides what’s true? In this case it’s pretty simple with scientific consensus pointing towards the most obvious truth, but there are plenty of cases where the truth is not known.

The challenge is that if the government decides what is true, then the government has the ability to decide what is and isn’t legal to say, and that is simply the total death of free speech.

All said, I wish we could do something about people who maliciously distribute misinformation. It’s really frustrating knowing that a lot of lawmakers knowingly mislead people during the pandemic, leading to many more deaths than were necessary.

36

LordArgon t1_j09nsnb wrote

The ONLY rational answer is that there should be a confidence level based on global expert opinion and what’s allowed should be a function of that confidence and the potential damage of being wrong. In the case of something like COVID, that’s synthesizing opinions based on the WHO as well as the public health departments of most major nations. In areas where they don’t clearly agree, you have to have to give more leeway than in areas where they do.

No, it’s not perfect but no perfect system exists and unfettered misinformation is demonstrably worse than relying on expert opinion. What you need to watch out for is corruption but that’s literally always a risk in any system. And if you’re going to claim corruption, then you’d better be willing to go to court with specific actionable evidence.

1

10takeWonder t1_j0743ph wrote

this isn't false information though? a real study (that op didn't read) that op thought would back up their anti vax point, but the contents of the study do not actually do that... as explained in this comment thread.

21

StealthTomato t1_j08sk79 wrote

You can create false narratives out of true information. Repeatedly posting information that looks like it implies the vaccine is dangerous is a deliberate attempt to sow a false narrative.

13

sschepis t1_j08bsvu wrote

What you are suggesting is that as humans we are incapable of processing information or making a determination as to what information might be harmful or not, and need to centralize this responsibility to protect people.

Yet, restriction of speech always leads to restriction of thought. The ability to think freely is fundamentally associated with the abilityt to talk freely.

Legislating what needs to ultimately become something we all do by virtue of being adults will always fail , and will always be abused by those in power because it does nothing to educate the individual relative their personal responsibilities as an individual to function properly in the world.

We deal with this with proactive education - we teach our kids to think properly, first of all. None of what is happening now should be a surprise, considering our politicians have been undermining and defunding our educational system.

Reacting out of fear is neither justified nor effective - and in itself shows a profound failure of our educational system

9