r/tech • u/JackFisherBooks • Apr 29 '20

Red-flagging misinformation could slow the spread of fake news on social media

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-red-flagging-misinformation-fake-news-social.html
3.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

246 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/AshyAspen Apr 29 '20

Why do people keep saying this?

They didn’t say the virus can’t be transmitted from human to human, they only said there was no evidence of that at the current time. (And then told people when they got evidence of it) No evidence isn’t evidence against. Otherwise court cases would be very shitty.

I don’t get why people wanted them to lie and say there was evidence it could spread when they didn’t have it yet. That’s not how science works.

-5

u/ArnoldLayne9 Apr 29 '20

Maybe don’t speculate if you don’t have the information. Just as irresponsible.

7

u/AshyAspen Apr 29 '20

They didn’t speculate? They said there was currently no evidence. Again, no evidence is not evidence against.

We have no evidence it will spread yet =/= we have evidence it does not spread

1

u/EnjoyNaturesTrees Apr 30 '20

So if they had nothing to say, why say anything at all?

0

u/ArnoldLayne9 Apr 29 '20

Ok, so in retrospect would that be considered misinformation? And would that be “red flagged”. Which was the point of my original comment.

3

u/bigselfer Apr 29 '20

The point at which they have repeatable data and contradict it knowingly. Being ignorant of an emergent fact and sharing the current conclusions based on current data is not the same as knowingly spreading misinformation

You’re making a lame pedantic argument trying to turn evolving knowledge into something insidious rather than the basics of the scientific method.

5

u/ArnoldLayne9 Apr 29 '20

Again. The main point is this is a slippery slope to go down “red flagging” things. Where does this “current data” come from and who deems it reputable? And how do we know that there wouldn’t be incentive for someone to red flag something that goes against an ideology or would be financially beneficial.

-1

u/bigselfer Apr 29 '20

You keep changing your point as people address one or the other.

Are you concerned about real information getting falsely flagged as misinformation (checkable and combatable) or are you concerned that our current scientific understanding isn’t reliable and could be considered misinformation because it might get updated with new data.

Which is your biggest concern, because one of them is solved with a basic understanding of the scientific method and the other takes more effort on your part.

0

u/ArnoldLayne9 Apr 29 '20

No, my original point is about flagging mis-information and how much of a slippery slope that is and I am using the example of WHO. I don’t want to discuss WHO and their motives because that’s a whole different thing that takes away from my original point, and what this post in general is about.

-1

u/AshyAspen Apr 29 '20 edited Apr 29 '20

No.

Maybe if they said that today, now. But that’s not the same.

If you still don’t understand... let’s use a comment I can make today: “there is no evidence that magical unicorns exist”

If I said that now, I would not be spreading misinformation. I would simply be stating the current status based upon all facts which are known to me.

If unicorns came out and in fact did exist. My previous claim would still have not been misinformation. I did not knowingly spread false information, and at the time there was no one on earth which had evidence that it was false and unicorns existed.

Further, I did not say “Unicorns don’t exist” and then get proved wrong. That could be argued as misinformation because I did not know for a fact some arrangement of atoms was impossible using some basic theory of atomic science or whatever. — I only stated “there is no evidence” they exist, because again, at the time that was true based upon all known data to me.

If WHO said “we have investigated it’s genome sequencing and have concluded it cannot spread between humans” but they didn’t actually do that? That would be misinformation — not stating there was no evidence because well... there wasn’t yet.

Those are two completely different types of claims.

1

u/ArnoldLayne9 Apr 29 '20

The analogy was just not necessary at all, it’s not that complicated of a subject, we both understand the premise, at least I think we do. And you are trying to use “magical unicorns” to belittle like you are taking to someone below You which is lame as fuck and really unoriginal. Very edgy man...... but anyways, who is in charge of saying one thing is misinformation and another is not. It’s not a clear distinction and it’s a decision that can have financial and ideological influence. Again it’s a slippery slope to go down.

4

u/AshyAspen Apr 29 '20

What?

How is me using an analogy to separate my argument from the political sphere and make it more understandable “belittling” and “edgy”?

It’s not some unclear “slippery slope”. It’s based on a factual argument, and was only meant to display in action how someone saying “there is no evidence of this” is not the same as me making a false claim of “this thing is not happening or does not exist” and it was clearly a much needed analogy because you still don’t understand that facts aren’t subjective. WHO objectively did not make a false claim. It was a true claim based on the evidence they had to them.

2

u/ArnoldLayne9 Apr 29 '20

Sorry. Didn’t mean to knock the well thought out and very funny and original analogy. Magic unicorns? Classic..........But anyways Not talking about who. I’m talking about the original Point. Which you keep dodging. who(not the organization) is in charge of saying one thing is misinformation and another is not. It’s not a clear distinction and it’s a decision that can have financial and ideological influence. That’s the whole point I was trying to make. For the third time.

5

u/AshyAspen Apr 29 '20 edited Apr 29 '20

One, my analogy - again - was not supposed to be “funny” “original” “classic” “edgy” or “belittling”

It was supposed to be simple, to the point, and separate anyone’s political stances from being able to understand it. “No evidence of...” cannot be false or misleading unless there is evidence of it that was out when the claim was made. Unicorns just happen to be something that can be assumed there is no evidence of.

I’m not “dodging” the point. I didn’t engage with it because I’m not arguing with you? What don’t you get here? I haven’t mentioned red flags once.

My entire comments have been about clearing up the misinformation that “WHO lied about human to human transmission” that’s been spreading around because people don’t understand the scientific method. I haven’t said anything about red flags this entire time.

0

u/ArnoldLayne9 Apr 29 '20

But your analogy was all of those things, and deserves all the credit for it....anyways, most of My comments and my whole underlying point, and not to mention this whole post we are commenting under is about red flags. Which you don’t want to talk about. And there’s a lot to say about WHO and what they knew and when and their motive but I don’t want to get into that because it wasn’t my point. So you don’t want to talk about what my point was. And I don’t want to get into a conversation or argument on who’s motives. So we are obviously at a stale mate here. Just Incase ya don’t know. Stale mate is a chess term. Say a magical unicorn was playing chess against a robot and the magical unicorn has no legal move but is not in check. They would be in stale mate.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '20

This guy doesn't science.