OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Misinformation Everywhere

Entry 2222, on 2022-06-11 at 15:25:14 (Rating 4, Politics)

Most people would agree that genuine cases of misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech should be avoided as much as possible.

Some people have trouble distinguishing between those first two words, so here are the definitions: misinformation: false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive; and disinformation: false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organisation to a rival power or the media. So the first is false and commonly deliberately fake, but not necessarily; and the second is fake and deliberately so.

Just for completeness, here is the definition of hate speech: hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

The first problem with any action against these three things is that they are difficult to define. Who decides what is objectively fake as opposed to something which is just uncertain, controversial, or unpopular? Who decides what is hate and what is just fair criticism of a group or individual?

Our prime minister has said that she has no definition for hate speech, but you will know it whan you see it. Well, no, like most of our PM's pronouncements, that is both untrue and very dangerous. What she sees as hate speech might be completely different than what I see that way. And while she has the power to force her opinions on us, by censoring material she sees as problematic, I don't have that same ability.

In fact, my statement about the false and problematic nature of the PM's statements is often labelled as hate speech itself, most commonly through claims of misogyny. If I had said a similar thing about a male leader (and I have), would that be misandry, or would it be OK? Criticism is not hate, and even if it was, so what? I have a perfect right to indulge in hatred, especially for politicians, if I want to, as long as it doesn't result in violence or clear harm.

The second problem is what right does a government have to censor opinions, even when they see them as wrong? There are several possibilities here: the statement might be genuinely wrong and deliberately so, or it might be objectively wrong even though the person making the statement believes it is right, or it might be unclear what level of truth it has.

I think few people make statements knowing they are wrong, although that must happen occasionally. More often, a statement makes sense according to the worldview of the person making it, although it might not according to other perspectives, or it might be unclear whether it is true or not.

For example, if I say "New Zealand can't make any meaningful contribution to reducing climate change, so why bother trying" I could be censored for misinformation, but is that statement deliberately untrue? No, I believe it is true (note the use of the word "meaningful"). Is it wrong even though I think it's right? Well, that word "meaningful" makes it hard to know for sure, but our maximum effect would be to reduce warming by well under 1% so that doens't seem meaningful to me. So, at worse, it is a statement with an unclear level of truth, in which case it is worth discussing, so censoring it cannot be justified.

So all that aside, let's look at one possible consequence of implementing an anti-misinformation regime: the government would have most of its material shut down! Here are some statements about COVID the New Zealand government, and its allies, have made in the last few years...

Some modelling suggested 88,000 people would die of Covid in NZ. So far it is just over 1000. The model was nonsense, and we should all have known that. I know there is some possibility that the error could be justified by saying the lockdowns and other measures were more effective than assumed, but by a factor of almost 100? Looks like misinformation to me!

Here's another: the vaccine is 95% effective. First, it's not clear what that even means. Does it mean only 5% of the expected infections will happen? Or 5% of the expected deaths? Or will vaccinated people catch COVID only 5% of the time they might expect otherwise? Sure, there might have been more details at the time, but people don't read the fine print, and from memory, even if you did things are still unclear. More misinformation.

Here's a related comment: the vaccine will stop transmission. Well very obviously it didn't, and it was obvious all along that it would never be an absolute solution to the problem. It does help reduce transmission, but that doesn't make the vaccine sound so important, so misinformation was preferred.

Again related to this: the vaccine will keep you out of hospital. The same criticism applies. Many vaccinated people still end up in hospital with COVID. The vaccine helps keep infected people out of hospital, because it offers some protection, but again a simpler message, which is actually misinformation, was preferred.

And, when a man who was shot in the head was counted as dying from COVID, it sure looks like more misinformation. In fact many deaths during the pandemic were attributed to it, where other factors were more likely to be the primary cause.

Here's a good one: our PM told us vaccination will not be mandatory. Well, I agree it depends on the exact definition of that word "mandatory", but when many people have lost their jobs, were excluded from society, and were treated like crazy conspiracy theorists (to be fair, I admit a certain proportion of them were) then I think it is as close to mandatory as it really needs to be. Again, misinformation.

In the early days of the pandemic we were told that cloth masks stop transmission. No, they don't, and even higher quality masks have limited value. It might have been assumed early on that they would work, but the statement is still not true, so it is - you guessed it - more misinformation.

Finally, we were told: this will be the pandemic of the unvaccinated. No, it isn't. More vaccinated than unvaccinated people are being infected and hospitalised. That's because there are far more people vaccinated than not, and the percentage of vaccinated people being badly affected is less, but the statement is ultimately incorrect, and so it is misinformation again.

If all of those valuable "public health messages" from our government and high-ranking officials were misinformation, should they have been censored? I'm sure they would say no, but why allow official misinformation but block it when it comes from others? It's very important that views contrary to the government's are allowed, because without that our leaders might become even more tyrannical than they already are.

I say, forget about the words misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech, and just respond to every statement based on its merits. If someone claims vaccines are potentially dangerous, don't condemn it. Instead say "yes, that is true, but not having a vaccine is even more dangerous, and here are the stats that prove it".

Not only is this a more honest approach, and therefore preferred from a philosophical perspective, but it is less confrontational and more likely to be effective in changing minds. Otherwise, if we are going to eliminate misinformation, make sure that the ban includes government misinformation!

Comment 1 (7222) by Anonymous on 2022-06-19 at 21:30:17:

You make a harmful comment and the victim of your comment suicides. How do you feel?

Comment 2 (7223) by OJB on 2022-06-20 at 21:41:42:

Well I feel bad, obviously, because I don't want that to ever happen. But I don't make negative comments about innocent individuals, and if anyone harms themselves as a result of a comment I make regarding a political issue, then I suspect there's a lot more going on than just a bad reaction to my comment.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.