Online Misinformation: Why I Have Such a Hard Time Accepting It (Page 2)

[findacure4wokeness]

Most people on Gag get offended easily. I ask the type the of questions that the left can't honestly answer and that offends them. Sometimes what turns out to be truth surprises me and I don't like it but I take the red pill. The truth offends and it's sending the world crazy at the moment.

[zagor]

Journalism has given up even the pretense of impartiality. It used to be to see obviously slanted opinions you went to the editorial/opinion page. Now it is self-evident in the front page articles. Not that many people read newspapers anymore. And a lot of TV "news" consists of someone rambling for an hour about their favorite peeve.

[Cowboy6666]

Well the internet is full of fake news, information, trolls.
Even i dont trust people easily in online World!!

Anyways good MyTake !!

[Rachelspiks]

Thank you :)

[strateguy632]

the conclusion was very intolerant and backwards. not harm due to false only harm if real harm but not words that can't injure. we must hear opposite sides and not in defiant way just opposed opinions

[Stephen_77]

Most of the fake news and disinformation comes from the mainstream media and lying politicians. I'm always sharing information on social media, regarding the dangers of the fake covid vaccines and the dangers of 5G, which do cause cancer. People can look at the information and make up their own minds.

[DryGermanGuy]

Don't forget the Jews that planned 9/11 in collaboration with the Reptiloids! The people have a right to know!!!

[Rachelspiks]

There is no evidence that 5G causes cancer. If there is, I would like you to present it to me here and now. Otherwise put a cork in it.

[Stephen_77]

Well experts have known for years that being exposed to radiation causes cancer, and 5G exposes people to huge amounts of radiation. It's not rocket science is it. And do you really think your government is going to tell you the truth about this? Use some common sense.

[Stephen_77]

@DryGermanGuy No, there's no conspiracy. Your government loves you and would never lie to you LOL.

[Anonymous]

sweet! So you're one of the few leftists that agree that social media companies need to be stripped of their section 230 protection since you insist they are private companies with the ability to censor what they wish--while section 230 is designed to provide protections for public platforms. :) Or was that by accident that you just sided with conservatives? lol.

[Rachelspiks]

Why do you call me a "leftist"? I don't care about politics, except to the extent it's sometimes mildly amusing and entertaining (like that clown Trump, and Sleepy Joe).

[zeitgeist057]

because for some people, everything must be political, so they start off with the assumptions and labeling, in order for things to fit into their narrow world view.

[Massageman]

I agree. The woke "accepting" culture of current education needs to be dismantled before all the kids end up as puppets, incapable of original thought and analysis! Hurray for homeschooling.

[DonkeyDan]

Agree completely, you know the saying "ignorance is bliss."

[es20490446e]

Time for the standard reply:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/P6PAUs-aUG0

[legalboxers]

because some news channels fit the news to fit a narrative for their viewers

[Rachelspiks]

Just "some"?

[f_ckjoebiden]

As long as Hollywood and 99% of all media is left bent there will never be true information...

[Anonymous]

i find it funny when an abrasive user tries to appeal to us like this. We judge you on your previous behavior.

[NicoletteXO]

I think you are confusing intelligence with abrasiveness.

[Rachelspiks]

How have I been "abrasive"? Which of my previous posts were like that? Just curious.

[Tamera952]

Brilliantly said. I whole-heartedly agree.

[Anonymous]

Hold up--didn't you JUST suggest banning (i. e., CENSORING) people from GAG unless they have an IQ of 120 or more? If you're worried about censorship, look no further than your nearest mirror. . .

[Rachelspiks]

That was merely a suggested way we could raise the level of discussion here at GAG. I don't consider the rants of lunatics like trolls, people who by their own admission have nothing of value to contribute to any discussion, to be worthy of respect. Free speech doesn't include the "right" to abuse or deceive others, nor does it include the "right" to slander or harass.

[Rachelspiks]

Furthermore, private entities like GAG (and YouTube, Facebook and so on) are private entities who have the right to ban (or censor) anyone they like, and no, this isn't a free speech issue. Free speech never has been, nor should it be, unlimited. You don't have the "right" to ruin someone's reputation, for example.

[Opinion Owner]

But who gets to decide what constitutes abuse, deception or harassment? Who gets to determine what is information and what is misinformation? Did we not just have a situation where anyone who suggested that COVID originated in a Chinese lab in Wuhan was a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic trafficking in misinformation, ONLY THEN to come to determine--"hey, wait a second--maybe there IS something to that claim!"

Methinks the "cure" you propose is worse than the disease you would treat.

[Rachelspiks]

"But who gets to decide what constitutes abuse, deception or harassment?"
Are you serious? Would you like an example or two? Okay.
Abuse would be (for example) me calling you a vulgar or demeaning name in frustration due to my inability to, for example, refute a point you've made. Ex. "You're just a coward, a lazy fat incel who can't get laid".
An example of deception would be if I pretended to be someone I'm not, in order to gain some advantage over you (ex. trick you into handing over money).
Harassment would be if I pestered you for some kind of favour, couldn't take "no" for an answer, and followed you around on GAG, downvoting your comments and leaving demeaning, personal remarks.

[Opinion Owner]

Again--WHO gets to decide? Is it up to the offended party to decide that abuse or harassment has occurred? What if there was no intend to offend but offense occurred at any rate? Does that exonerate the charge of abuse? Or is all that matters the impact it had on the supposed victim? Can that alleged victim compel the alleged abuser to say things which grate against the latter's view of objective reality?

I don't think censorship is going to be a winning gameplan.

[Rachelspiks]

Are you seriously trying to suggest to me that you wouldn't know if you were being abused online unless someone got to decide whether or not you were in fact being abused? It doesn't work that way. I would have thought that everyone would know this.

[Opinion Owner]

Not at all what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that one person "feeling" they've been abused is in no way proof of abuse. If you think through the implications of what you're suggesting you might find the problems with it.

[Rachelspiks]

"What I'm suggesting is that one person "feeling" they've been abused is in no way proof of abuse"
That's right, it isn't. This is where the actual evidence for abuse would come in (ex. text messages, tweets).

[Jake99999]

How do I know what you are saying is true? lol

[Rachelspiks]

I guess you'll just have to trust me. Or, you can get it fact-checked on 'Snopes'! :)

[WesBrewer]

for a sec I though the cubes said "cake" lol

[t-8900]

Ahhh the #PizzaGate scandal... good times.

[f_ckjoebiden]

#PoopyPantsBiden Check out #hurt #nin #lgb
Joe will make you HURT [Nine Inch Nails cover] on YOUTUBE> He focused on the stain!

[bamesjond0069]

Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.

[Dragonpurple]

Are you sure, that could be considered spreading misinformation... in today's modern transgender world. *Sarcasm off*

[Rachelspiks]

Blasphemy! :D

[anylolone]

Well. have you considered an obvious explanation?

[erandal]

Brilliant MyTake.