Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Poll Result
Voted 65 times in total
People have a right to be wrong, and you have the ability to discern right from wrong.
People also have the right to state inconvenient truths that may or may not hurt the feelings of the person or parties in question.
Look, I know times are tough, I know that everyone has their struggles, their opinions, their shortcomings, and their own views on what's best for the world, but there comes a point where people need to be able to look inward and decide for themselves on what's true and what isn't. It's a personal responsibility, not a government or even a corporate one in my opinion.
Sure, "oh businesses are private entities, blah blah blah." OK. But businesses are shutting down people who criticize or negatively review, or inflate the reviews of their products in order to appear more reputable, to boost sales, or reduce a negative and otherwise organic public perception of their products, if they suck, and that's wrong and shows a huge lack of self awareness and a lack of willingness to do better in the minds of the consumers.
In short, be self-aware. Do your due diligence, be honest with yourself, and know when it's in your own best interest to make a change, or to face the facts, even when they are difficult or inconvenient for you to hear and take forward into the future. People need to learn to take the negative, drop the ego, and use the critiques to better themselves. Half of what is "false" in the media is simply an alternative viewpoint that questions the morality and practices of the common narrative.
Well who’s fault is that? People had ought to know by now that we live in a “post-truth” kind of world. I wish the media establishment would acknowledge that people are onto their BS, adjust, and seek to better unify our people, not divide.
There are facts espoused today that were considered misinformation a year ago. I think we should relax on the punishment on people in general around this issue
But should media outlets be held to a higher standard, and be required to correct misinformation on the same medium used to spread it? Absolutely
You can argue it's not known, you can't argue it's inaccurate or not true which is the primary factor in defining something as misinformation. There's mounting evidence as time goes by that it was true.
It hasn't been proven without a shadow of a doubt, but there is evidence. Now if you can say with evidence to say it wasn't created in a lab then you can make a case for misinformation
mis·in·for·ma·tion
/ˌmisinfərˈmāSH (ə) n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.
The definition of misinformation literally says "false or inaccurate". If you cannot prove it is false or inaccurate then you CANNOT say it's misinformation.
It's still being determined. If it's proven false then you can say continuing to spread it is misinformation. Till that day you're actually the one stating misinformation.
At best you can say is you believe it's not true, there's some evidence to suggest it's a lab leak but it's yet to be proven. That's the most you can say.
Belief vs knowing. To label something as misinformation you have to KNOW (It's provable) it's false or inaccurate. If you can't prove it you can't honestly say it.
This is tricky, I saw things before that got banned on social media during the last election but then after the election came out as valid. As people can play politics and hide the truth just long enough to get the election done, then it comes out later that it was right all along.
Of course you don't see that on main stream media, when they are screaming its false. Later they'll issue a tiny note somewhere when no one is paying attention.
I call it censorship, so your question is really, should censorship be allowed on the dominant ways to communicate?
People should do their own research, don't be a sheep and believe what others post.
Who was it that said "we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts" so many people have quoted that but I think it's important that everyone get their information on a topic from a variety of sources because anyone person or organization can lie or spread misinformation. When I had more time I used to read or watch both liberal media and right wing media, and the ones that claim to be neutral as well as foreign news programs to try and figure out which political facts were true, each had their own slant on them and I figured the truth was somewhere in the middle.
"I figured the truth was somewhere in the middle"
That's a fallacy, unfortunately.
For example: "There was massive fraud" vs. "There was no fraud" doesn't mean there was a lot of fraud, the truth is there was practically no fraud, like one in a million, which is a lot closer to one claim than the other. (And that assumes the left wing claim isn't the totally accurate "There was practically no fraud".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...Window_diagram.svg.png
It was unthinkable that any politician would call into doubt the whole of the democratic process before 2016 (almost nobody noticed that Trump did that back then, too, in case he lost; once the election was over, he never mentioned it again until 2020). It was unthinkable that politicians would tell outright lies and call the people who called them out fake news, too.
Opinion
28Opinion
u Who decides what constitutes "misinformation?"
And political bias never enters into that decision?
That is a point for debate. I think reasonable persons could differ on their view of that issue.
Judging someone's intent is extremely subjective and always biased when the content is socio-political.
The spread of misinformation and disinformation about a public health crisis gets people dead. We have a woman at work who REFUSED to wear a mask or get vaccinated because she heard on 8chan or Facebook or some other message board that it was all a hoax and that she "knew the truth"... Luckily the CDC and OSHA implemented rules and our job told us we could A) show proof of vaccination B) wear a mask or C) find other employment... She chose B after insisting she never would (we get paid very well for out region)
The problem is, the only way out of this (and it's getting harder and harder) is through SCIENCE and when people refuse to listen to scientists because they're scientists, then all that are left are grifters, snake oil salesmen, and confidence men of every sort. And while the scientists don't know you to care about you specifically, they care about truth, while the grifter may even know you, but only cares about themselves.
"gets people dead" if you follow the science, healthy younger individuals are at extremely low risk so who is it thats dying again? You mean an obese 90 year old with diabetes?
@bamesjond0069 so we should let them die, is what you’re saying? Man, and I get picked on for calling you fcks nazis.
So why let people drive cars? So we should just let people die?
@bamesjond0069 why do we make them get licenses? Why do we mandate epileptics can’t drive?
But that doesn't stop people from dying?
@bamesjond0069 you don’t think training people to drive saves lives?
Not as much as outlawing cars.
@bamesjond0069 i think you're confusing your own analagy.
That’s a tough call. Who defines what misinformation is? At the very least there should be some sort of judicial review.
But sometimes the consensus is wrong
I am troubled by the idea of giving control to a technocracy. What if I hold the sincere religious beliefs that science is bad and mysticism is good?
Depends.
Information and misinformation is how a lot of journalists and shitstirring media busy bodies get paid. Always have. Normally this would be used against the East and Middle East. But these tools are more and more being employed back against the West, hence why it's now seen as a "problem".
Legally speaking no other profession spends more time in court for lies and libel than the media sector. Can't really see that changing. But what has changed in that the media is becoming increasing irrelevant as social media is putting most of them out of a job. Just like music streaming has cut down the size and power of the record industries.
I can't bottle something and advertise it will cure covid, cancer, baldness or whatever without proof. Yet I'm allowed to make any claim I want on social media unchallenged. It's high time the people who start these claims are prosecuted.
A lot of the banning is based on opinion from YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. They are not objective. A media that had credibility is what kept the people from believing the wack jobs. Now the media is well known to be not trustworthy so it is a free for all out there. Twitter proper is just part of the untrustworthy sources. Didn’t Twitter ban one of the scientists who created the vaccine because he said something they didn’t agree with? Perhaps that fake news too but who cares anymore.
No, it shouldn't, any more than telling a lie over the phone should result in your disconnection and cancellation of your phone service by your provider. It isn't the job of, for example Facebook, to monitor the opinions of those who use their services because they are, as they themselves like to keep repeating ad nauseaum whenever it is convenient for them to do so, not media outlets.
Yes. Media shouldn't be used to spread misinformation. I mean, it's a form of deception isn't it? There's also an agenda to it, or they wouldn't be doing it. Deliberate deception for the purposes of financial gains or other benefits to the deceiver. That's basically fraud isn't it? Not only should it result in bans, there should be legal penalties.
News is supposed to be the reporting of factual information and nothing else.
Platforms should be platforms, radical view I know, but not arbiters of truth of gatekeepers to moral values. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, not freedom for speech I like.
Yes, people who with a big reach who deliberately post misinformation should be punished.
Simply make it easier to sue people for this stuff. Then a court of law can drill down on a "fact" for a whole week with a jury and get to the bottom of it. Loser pays attorney fees.
What happened with the covington kid comes to mind of how it should work. They lied about him and they paid him a lot of money.
Well at GaG you can post blatant lies.
But yeah on other platforms, vaccine misinformation gets you banned.
I say this sincerely. Thank the Lord.
deliberately is almost the same as belligerently so i say a slap on the ass
bad in a good way
No, that would not be used to combat misinformation, it would be used to combat dissent.
If the internet companies want to be treated like common carriers they cannot censor content. Otherwise they are news media.
You'd have to ban CNN entirely. They're having a rough time over there.
I've never watched cable news. The problem that CNN has is many others are starting to do the same thing. Their ratings are dropping like lemmings running off a cliff. That's what happens when you swing and miss at pitches in the dirt over and over again.
Well Jeffrey Tubin was going to light his pants on fire, but he couldn't find them...
Because what was miss information just weeks ago (ie cloth masks do nt work) Dr Fauci says now they don't. Wow... look at that
Who/what will determine what is "honest" information vs "mis"information?
You mean like when Fauci said masks are not necessary?
Man the CDC can't even get their shit right and you expect Fox News to?
Let's be real man, all cable news is, is propaganda.
CNN and MSNBC seemed pretty reasonable during the Bush era.
Now during the Biden era Fox News comes out as the more level-headed news network that is anti-establishment.
Do I think Fox News is inherently better? No. Fox News would want to stomp on the common man's neck as soon as they got enough power, just like CNN and MSNBC wants. I will never forget how bad the right wing of America was during the Bush era, even though they are darlings right now.
And before anybody says, no, I am not a right winger. I am 100% for abortion, I think religion is corny, I think being a prude is corny and so on.
@NYCQuestions1976 you're focusing on individual shit, not the wide angle.
This is from 2015…but I doubt it’s changed much.
www.politifact.com/.../
That is just the nature of organizations. All organizations eventually fall to corruption, most notably the organizations that purport to be for the people.
There can never be a government or media organizations that are for the people, not for long. Rich, small groups of people always went out and that is likely how it will always be for the rest of humanity's miserable existence.
@Juxtapose The CDC is doing what I've described on here before: DMV syndrome. Issuing advice that's not necessarily deliberately wrong, but painfully vague. Over time, that can breed distrust, and even outright contempt.
@NYCQuestions1976 the CDC isn’t why people are anti-vax. Trump is. And you know it.
@OddBeMe There's a difference between anti-vaccination and anti-mandates. I'm vaccinated, and pro-vaccinations, but strongly appose the mandates (except in the medical field, which is why I agreed with both Supreme Court decisions this week).
Regardless, plenty of people have been anti-vaccination long before Trump was President and long before Covid. Remember the "vaccines cause autism" people (Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy as two famous examples) and their fabulous "doctor", Andrew Wakefield? They weren't/aren't conservatives or even remotely right-leaning. Google them and their followers. They're still around.
@NYCQuestions1976 it was never this mainstream and you know it.
And why is ok to mandate the medical field but not other workplaces?
@OddBeMe Never that mainstream? Are you serious? It was PLENTY mainstream... there just wasn't digital garbage like Twitter back then. Do you not remember the Measles comeback around 10 years ago in school-age children because their parents weren't vaccinating their kids at birth in the early 2000s because of this bullshit? Or how Jenny McCarthy was on The View promoting this crap 20 years ago? Google it all. It's not that hard to find.
Yes, because of two words: Underlying conditions. When you choose to work around people with underlying conditions, you're supposed to do everything in your power and medical ability to prevent people dealing with preexisting health problems from getting things like pneumonia, bronchitis, influenza, etcetera. Covid falls into that category.
Yeah actually I have had plenty of people tell me that my autism was from vaccines lol..
I do believe the anti-mandate movement has more momentum though.
And I do believe the right and left are equivalent and ultimately work for the same people. This is just a good cop and bad cop routine where they occasionally switch sides.
@Juxtapose The anti-mandate movement now? Yes, because there wasn't a "mandate" movement back then. However the "anti-vaccination" movement was just the same. There just wasn't Facebook and Twitter to shovel Wakefield's shit back then. The giant spike in Measles was the result of that movement.
@NYCQuestions1976 because there’s wasn’t a fckin pandemic “back then”.
Yes, it should, although perhaps not on GaG since we have a very vigorous group of people who tell the truth here.
Depends on the sites tos of course.
id argue yes though
You can't stop people from lying. That would be unconstitutional
Absolutely, because you knowly have Bad Intentions.
No, who decides what is misinformation? Especially, when what was considered misinformation 3 months ago is now considered the truth today.
Fauci funded gain of function research in the Wuhan lab.
Misinformation is whatever the state doesn't want you to know.
Absolutely not. If anyone has something to say.. Then say it!
Half of the things you post on GAG would be eliminated.
What misinformation was that?
this will be used to silence info the government doesn't like
Are we going to ban Sotomayor?
She claimed there were over 100,000 children in the hospital with severe Covid and many were on ventilators. This is false information.
Yes. Absolutely. You are going to excuse a Supreme Court justice not knowing the facts behind a case she is going to rule on?
You are excusing a Supreme Court justice for being ignorant of the facts of a case she is ruling on.
Did she correct her mistake publicly and vote that the mandate is unconstitutional?
@OddBeMe completely related. Let’s clarify one more time. A sitting Supreme Court justice. The highest court in the United States, listening to a case presented in front of the court is guilty of one of two things
1) lying about the number of kids in the hospital to push her political views
2) completely ignorant
And your response is WhAt aBOuT tRuMP?
Gtfoh
@joeldalton, the leftists confirm once again that they want to ban speech that doesn’t agree with their narratives, not their own nonsense.
Sotomayor was surely aware not only that we she said was wildly inaccurate and That she was deliberately spreading misinformation. But the concept of protected speech is lost on leftists.
In an era where the White House dictates media coverage and social media bans, the proposal to ban „misinformation“ is unconstitutional and immoral.
That's not an answer to the question I asked, now, is it? @Avicenna, do you want to try? I mean we're all against misinformation here, right? We wouldn't want people to get the wrong ideas about what we're talking about, would we?
What did the mandate require of employees of large companies? If you don't know that, then Yes or No: would it have forced them to be vaccinated?
You do seem to be very hung up on Harvey Weinstein’s dick. I'm sure you'd have got a part. Of course, he didn't offer his victims the option of wearing an extra piece of clothing. And being obnoxious leaves you the option of not answering simple questions about what the mandate really involved.
Like you haven't been spreading misinformation for the last 18 months.
As usual, you're trying to pretend something that wasn't 100% right was 100% wrong, which it wasn't. Kids are being hospitalised, despite your claims that they've got nothing to worry about.
The fact checks on what Sotomayor said all mention about 85,000 total hospital admissions for under-18s since 1. August 2020, but now, a week or so later, the number's gone up to nearly 92,000.
@goaded Even though I’m right, I’m not a Supreme Court justice. she is a liar. And so are you. Fraudci even admitted over half of the children in the hospital are admitted WITH covid, not BECAUSE of covid. Your fraudulent house of cards is starting to fall. It’s hilarious watching your death throes.
wow so if any justice gets something wrong, they're out?
www.reuters.com/.../after-fumbled-oath-roberts-and-obama-leave-little-to-chance-idUSBRE90H16L20130118
You bring up completely irrelevant bullshit and think you're dunking on someone. That's what makes you hilarious.
you dipshit There's making a mistake and being ignorant of the facts of a case she's supposedly qualified to rule on. She's an embarrassment to the court. This is what happens when you fill job openings with racial and gender quotas.
Lol, no. You dipshit. Sotomayor is an embarrassment every day. Again, she spread covid misinformation on purpose. She should be cancelled and disbarred.
Misinformation effect is a beautiful thing
no i don't think so
You can also add your opinion below!
