Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ...
20
28
29
30
31
32
... LastLast
  1. #581
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    "A great deal" could be anywhere between 1% and 49%.

    What's the percentage?
    He's wrong, anyway. Misinformation is all non-factual. He's trying to lie, and present nuggets of truth within the pudding of lies as "proof" that the pudding is truth, which is horseshit nonsense. The pudding is lies, and you don't get to ignore the pudding in this evaluation.


  2. #582
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You understand what analogies are and how they work, right?

    Because this counter doesn't make any sense unless you're under the mistaken impression that analogies are tautologies.

    I did not claim that fraud was exactly the same as misinformation.



    Then why are you posting here? Misinformation is not factual, and causes verifiable harm.

    Lying about that just makes you a liar, it isn't a counterpoint.
    You even said some of those things were possible actionable.

    I do understand analogies, and how they work. That's why I liked my immigration analogy to bust through your ultimatum.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    He's wrong, anyway. Misinformation is all non-factual. He's trying to lie, and present nuggets of truth within the pudding of lies as "proof" that the pudding is truth, which is horseshit nonsense. The pudding is lies, and you don't get to ignore the pudding in this evaluation.
    A great deal is a subjective term.

    This is the foundation of misinformation, those grains of truths, and statements that are technically correct. Lies are easy to refute, half-truths are easy to believe.

  3. #583
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    No, that's not intent, because they could simply be the gullible bastard who believed it. A person could simply say they believed it to be true, because that's what they were told.
    If you shoot someone because you think they're a demon, because your pastor told you they were, you're still guilty of murder. The pastor just might share some culpability.

    You don't seem to understand what "intent" means, since you're confusing it with "motive".

    These are monstrous hurdles to climb in the case of misinformation. if they were easy, then this would have been settled in the Supreme Court years ago.
    There's currently no law on this to begin with. We're discussing an "ought" argument, not an "is" argument.

    This isn't the first time you've willfully confused the two and pretended that confusion was an argument.


  4. #584
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    "A great deal" could be anywhere between 1% and 49%.

    What's the percentage?
    Nope, it's a subjective term, I gave examples. If you like more, I can PM them to you. Do you want me to?

  5. #585
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    A great deal is a subjective term.
    Then maybe try something more accurate like "a few accounts I've seen, which aren't generalisable because it's not a statistically significant sample size nor even relevant because misinformation is counterfactual by definition".
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  6. #586
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you shoot someone because you think they're a demon, because your pastor told you they were, you're still guilty of murder. The pastor just might share some culpability.

    You don't seem to understand what "intent" means, since you're confusing it with "motive".



    There's currently no law on this to begin with. We're discussing an "ought" argument, not an "is" argument.

    This isn't the first time you've willfully confused the two and pretended that confusion was an argument.
    Except, you have to show that that specific person cause harm, and you have to have a victim.

    I mean, I'm glad we have no law on the issue. As for the "ought," we wholeheartedly disagree. And yes, I'm confident that you will not get such a law passed in my country in my lifetime.

  7. #587
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you shoot someone because you think they're a demon, because your pastor told you they were, you're still guilty of murder. The pastor just might share some culpability.

    You don't seem to understand what "intent" means, since you're confusing it with "motive".
    Yeah... Remind me why we're discussing intent when this isn't a criminal issue anyway?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  8. #588
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You even said some of those things were possible actionable.
    Yes. In certain contexts.

    You're willfully misrepresenting my response by cutting that part of it out.

    I do understand analogies, and how they work. That's why I liked my immigration analogy to bust through your ultimatum.
    Which it . . . didn't. Since I held the same position there.

    A great deal is a subjective term.

    This is the foundation of misinformation, those grains of truths, and statements that are technically correct. Lies are easy to refute, half-truths are easy to believe.
    Again, false. Misinformation is not truth. It's the lies around the truths. This is literally what misinformation is. It's in the "mis-" prefix. Why are you lying about what the word means?


  9. #589
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Then maybe try something more accurate like "a few accounts I've seen, which aren't generalisable because it's not a statistically significant sample size nor even relevant because misinformation is counterfactual by definition".
    Except, I've seen it hundreds and hundreds of times.

    They are common talking points among anti-vaxxers and misinformation peddlers. Since you haven't taken me up on the offer for more via PM, I'll assume it's a sufficient amount for you.

  10. #590
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except, I've seen it hundreds and hundreds of times.
    r/thathappened
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  11. #591
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Yeah... Remind me why we're discussing intent when this isn't a criminal issue anyway?
    It could be, which is the only reason I'm entertaining it to begin with. If it were civil law like libel, then yeah, intent wouldn't be relevant at all. And the standard of evidence would just be "a reasonable person wouldn't be likely to post this".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except, you have to show that that specific person cause harm, and you have to have a victim.
    Again, we're not talking libel, here.

    You don't have to have a victim, with child pornography. You could draw the child porn, and it would still be child pornography and still illegal, even if no actual children were harmed. See also incitement to riot, which is about the intent and not whether a riot actually occurred. And so on.


  12. #592
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Yes. In certain contexts.

    You're willfully misrepresenting my response by cutting that part of it out.



    Which it . . . didn't. Since I held the same position there.



    Again, false. Misinformation is not truth. It's the lies around the truths. This is literally what misinformation is. It's in the "mis-" prefix. Why are you lying about what the word means?
    I hold the same position, speech can be restricted, but I do not support the restriction of speech in the manner we are discussing.

    Once again, this is the issue. You have mountains of half-truths being spammed by millions of people. In essence, it's the "mob rule" issue, where you cannot determine who caused the harm.

    And yes, that is a huge problem.

  13. #593
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I hold the same position, speech can be restricted, but I do not support the restriction of speech in the manner we are discussing.
    And yet, you never explain why.

    You can't use "because it's a restriction on speech" as that explanation, since you've already dismissed it yourself as a position you don't believe.

    Once again, this is the issue. You have mountains of half-truths being spammed by millions of people. In essence, it's the "mob rule" issue, where you cannot determine who caused the harm.

    And yes, that is a huge problem.
    You don't need to figure out the origin point. You can just take action against all offenders.

    And again; there's no need to identify a particular victim. That's not a requirement under the law.

    It doesn't matter who told a guy that as a sovereign citizen, he could refuse to pay taxes or comply with police, all that matters is that they did those things.


  14. #594
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It could be, which is the only reason I'm entertaining it to begin with. If it were civil law like libel, then yeah, intent wouldn't be relevant at all. And the standard of evidence would just be "a reasonable person wouldn't be likely to post this".

    - - - Updated - - -



    Again, we're not talking libel, here.

    You don't have to have a victim, with child pornography. You could draw the child porn, and it would still be child pornography and still illegal, even if no actual children were harmed. See also incitement to riot, which is about the intent and not whether a riot actually occurred. And so on.
    If you have no victim, and you cannot determine harm, then you have a very difficult path to even writing such a law, much less having it survive constitutional scrutiny. This is especially true if you are going after social media companies, and not the people posting the misinformation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And yet, you never explain why.

    You can't use "because it's a restriction on speech" as that explanation, since you've already dismissed it yourself as a position you don't believe.



    You don't need to figure out the origin point. You can just take action against all offenders.

    It doesn't matter who told a guy that as a sovereign citizen, he could refuse to pay taxes or comply with police, all that matters is that they did those things.
    I've explained it numerous times.

    It is a burdensome and unnecessary restriction on speech.

    Yes, that is an argument.

    It infringes on the First Amendment protections of Americans and business owners.

    Now, you can say you don't believe me, and we can see who eventually wins.

  15. #595
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    If you have no victim, and you cannot determine harm, then you have a very difficult path to even writing such a law, much less having it survive constitutional scrutiny.
    Nope. Those simply aren't requirements for law to exist or be prosecutable, in the first place.

    If you knowingly sell tainted pharmaceuticals, getting caught before they hit shelves doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. No victim, no harm, still a crime.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I've explained it numerous times.

    It is a burdensome and unnecessary restriction on speech.

    Yes, that is an argument.
    It really isn't. You're just saying you don't like it. It's just subjective, baseless opposition.

    I can debunk that "argument" completely thusly; "Nah."


  16. #596
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Nope. Those simply aren't requirements for law to exist or be prosecutable, in the first place.

    If you knowingly sell tainted pharmaceuticals, getting caught before they hit shelves doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. No victim, no harm, still a crime.
    But, you have already stated that no law covers this, we're dealing with hypotheticals. Meanwhile, in this country, even hate speech is protected speech. So, the idea that one could successfully restrict most of this misinformation... is a pipe dream.

    Many have tried to argue harm from that, and it has failed miserably on many occasions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Nope. Those simply aren't requirements for law to exist or be prosecutable, in the first place.

    If you knowingly sell tainted pharmaceuticals, getting caught before they hit shelves doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. No victim, no harm, still a crime.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It really isn't. You're just saying you don't like it. It's just subjective, baseless opposition.

    I can debunk that "argument" completely thusly; "Nah."
    No, I've said it's a giant restriction on the First Amendment. You can disagree, but you don't get to change my argument.

    So, nah.

    Now, not only to I have the luxury of it currently being legal, I think you and I both know how the SCOTUS would rule on such things. So, I'm pretty content with my position.

  17. #597
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I've explained it numerous times.

    It is a burdensome and unnecessary restriction on speech.
    No, what you've "explained" is repeating "but Section 230, but the First Amendment, but SCOTUS" without actually explaining why this speech should be protected or why regulating social media to reduce its incidence is "burdensome and unnecessary".

    And then resorting to appeal to authority fallacies, to boot, which is odd coming from a libertarian.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  18. #598
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    No, what you've "explained" is repeating "but Section 230, but the First Amendment, but SCOTUS" without actually explaining why this speech should be protected or why regulating social media to reduce its incidence is "burdensome and unnecessary".

    And then resorting to appeal to authority fallacies, to boot, which is odd coming from a libertarian.
    Most of it should be protected, because it's not a harmful act. I especially keyed in on the parts that involve half-truths, because that relies a great deal on subjective interpretations. This was especially problematic for the chap who called for the nationalization of all social media companies. I want to keep out as much subjectivity as possible from the government.

    Yes, I'm well aware that juries are a thing. It's both a blessing, and a curse in that regard.

  19. #599
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I hold the same position, speech can be restricted, but I do not support the restriction of speech in the manner we are discussing.
    Without actually giving any reason to said opposition besides "restricting speech is bad".

    Quit contradicting yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Most of it should be protected, because it's not a harmful act.
    Cool: misinformation is manifestly harmful, so that doesn't answer the question.

    Why should misinformation be considered protected speech?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  20. #600
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Without actually giving any reason to said opposition besides "restricting speech is bad".

    Quit contradicting yourself.
    Except, I am not saying that. In fact, I have stated several times that I'm not saying that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Without actually giving any reason to said opposition besides "restricting speech is bad".

    Quit contradicting yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Cool: misinformation is manifestly harmful, so that doesn't answer the question.
    "You're zipper is down."

    Ha, made you look. I guess that's harmful to you?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •