10-12-2024, 07:53 PM
Contextually speaking, misinformation and disinformation are used primarily (of late) as terms of bias, NOT factual reality.
If something can be considered an opinion, and/or it stands in contrast or as denial of something a person believes, he or she can designate it 'disinformation' or 'misinformation' and easily reject it, if they are rational; or stand on a soapbox and denounce it, if 'activism' is the aim of the moment.
I think the term has been introduced as per George Carlin's observation... they wish they could call it a "lie," but they can't, so they use a newer word which means the same thing and more... focusing on the more, and avoiding the obvious problem of calling it a lie outright.
But of course what we are ally talking about is how this pertains to free speech.
Speech is an action, as such it is theoretically 'free" and comparable to any act instigated by the individual, its sole architect. The content of that speech is an idea or thought, also free.
What that content is judged as, or in what manner, is another matter entirely... and entirely up to the audience... hence the problem.
It is protected... what some people really want is protection to attack the "offending" speaker... a codified shield of virtue, if you will.
If something can be considered an opinion, and/or it stands in contrast or as denial of something a person believes, he or she can designate it 'disinformation' or 'misinformation' and easily reject it, if they are rational; or stand on a soapbox and denounce it, if 'activism' is the aim of the moment.
I think the term has been introduced as per George Carlin's observation... they wish they could call it a "lie," but they can't, so they use a newer word which means the same thing and more... focusing on the more, and avoiding the obvious problem of calling it a lie outright.
But of course what we are ally talking about is how this pertains to free speech.
Speech is an action, as such it is theoretically 'free" and comparable to any act instigated by the individual, its sole architect. The content of that speech is an idea or thought, also free.
What that content is judged as, or in what manner, is another matter entirely... and entirely up to the audience... hence the problem.
It is protected... what some people really want is protection to attack the "offending" speaker... a codified shield of virtue, if you will.
