Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

strangefolk t1_iu7gtvo wrote

Reply to comment by ShadowPooper in Social Media Giants Systemically Fail on Hate and Disinformation, Report Says by HowMyDictates

Even the terms 'dis' or 'mis' information are totally political, started by folks on the establishment left who control the language. When I see people talking about 'fact checking disinformation' all I see is people who want to control the narrative. Just look at how the CDC guidelines for COVID have changed. In some cases what's labeled 'misinformation' today is accepted truth in 6 months. Hell, I'm still banned from a sub for questioning the utility of masks and I'm just a fat guy nobody on reddit. That's how viciously and quickly the censorship trickled down.

You see the right taking on the same language game now which is always the que that new a vocabulary and definitions will be developed by the leftist academic establishment.

−4

amish_fortnite_gamer t1_iu7mjsn wrote

  • Misinformation (1580-90)
  • Disinformation (1965-70)

Misinformation vs Disinformation

2

strangefolk t1_iu7n6ht wrote

I've seen this before and I'm sure it's true. Cute, but neither term was in common usage. The real reason it's used is because it's a more polite way to call someone a liar and/or an idiot.

The goal, as defined by how we saw it used not what people say it's for - like in your link, is to shoot down opposing views as wrongthink, not simply clarify a misunderstanding. That's what I mean when I say these terms are politicized.

−5

amish_fortnite_gamer t1_iu7so3v wrote

You clearly played hooky on the day that they covered Latin root words in your English class. You are free to reject the accepted definitions for words, but don't act surprised when people disunderstand you the same.

1

strangefolk t1_iu7t2qc wrote

I don't have anything more to add. Per my previous comment, your etymology is a manipulative shell game engineered to distract.

−3

amish_fortnite_gamer t1_iu7tqqf wrote

Disunderstand (dis-un-der-stand) (verb)

  1. Refusal to concede an idea. Unwillingness to acknowledge or attempt to understand a given concept, principle, act, or activity for fear that such understanding or acknowledgement is antithetical to one's own principles.

  2. To fail to comprehend or understand why something is the way it is, when it is obvious that the situation should be otherwise or the situation defies logic or common sense. Similar in meaning to misunderstand, however it implies that the speaker blames the source, often a person or group of people, for intentionally causing confusion or simply being too lazy to clarify the situation.

0

Mr_Dr_Prof_Patrick t1_iu7o8zb wrote

It makes sense that guidelines would change as covid changed

1

strangefolk t1_iu7ow0f wrote

Maybe, but it was never expressed that way.

Those items that were 'dangerous misinformation' one day just suddenly weren't censored anymore. There was never an adult conversation about what was censored, why, when, and why that perspective will no longer be physically removed from the conversation from this point onward. Thinking people notice when you don't let them have a full conversation and then suddenly change the rules. And I don't regard that as a coincidence or an honest mistake.

1

Mr_Dr_Prof_Patrick t1_iu7q6lj wrote

Never expressed that way where? By who? I thought there was pretty widely available + straightforward information about new variants, how they work, how the observed transmissibility was different, and on the other hand people harping on a guidance change without bothering to check the rationale.

I think you're conflating a lot of different people talking about a lot of different things. The guidelines themselves and how they change, third party companies and the terms of service they choose to set, all the other people with opinions to express. Where / how / with who were you expecting to see this adult conversation about what was censored?

1

strangefolk t1_iu7rguq wrote

>Where / how / with who were you expecting to see this adult conversation about what was censored?

Social media platforms have never been clear about what warrants a ban, including when CDC changed their recommendations. Aren't these conversations the job of the corporate media?

But the arbitrary and malicious enforcement really showed it to be a political cudgel. You have to be a real partisan hack to cry about hate speech, ban Jordan Peterson, but then keep ISIS and the Taliban online. I donno, in my perfect world none of it would be censored at anytime so there is no 'good' way to do it anyway.

0