Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Regayov t1_ivblnjl wrote

Reply to comment by FarmerHandsome in Attorney General Bonta Calls on Social Media Companies to Stop the Spread of Disinformation Ahead of 2022 Midterm Elections by Wagamaga

Interesting point. Please explain. Seems the two are very similar and the difference is subjective.

1

FarmerHandsome t1_ivbn8m3 wrote

Misinformation is wrong. It may be a joke or a prank or even just someone being ignorant and misunderstanding a topic then spreading their misunderstanding. It can still be harmful to the democratic process, but it could also be a quote misattributed to Mark Twain.

Disinformation is intentionally wrong and is created and disseminated with the intent to deceive and/or harm. This is what the AG is warning about. It is always malicious and is detrimental to democracy. One example would be the idea that the 2020 election was rigged (it wasn't, and any information to the contrary is a lie: ie. It is disinformation).

Edit: once someone unknowingly spreads disinformation, it becomes misinformation. Should have included nuance in the first place.

5

Regayov t1_ivbszd0 wrote

Ok. Good explanation. I’d maybe argue that in this context it is the AG (or everyone, really) using the term “misinformation” instead of “disinformation”. It’s also not easy to tell the difference between the two with a well engineered disinformation campaign by a well funded organization or government. Which brings it back to my original point: the government saying “look out for signs of organizational disinformation campaigns, here is how” is different from specifically calling for information to be purged.

3

FarmerHandsome t1_ivc43ie wrote

I mean, the article title literally says "disinformation." The AG said "disinformation." So you aren't actually in disagreement with the AG.

Regarding informing the public, a lot of these disinformation campaigns have already poisoned the well so much that even trying to get people to pay more attention to sources is an uphill battle because they now only believe the disinformation sources. If you try to offer a counterclaim, even with evidence, they will deny the veracity of even the most well documented information. That's why the AG is asking for help. We know that social media companies actually push dis- and misinformation because it drives engagement. So it isn't even that we need to quash the information, we simply need social media companies to stop actively participating in its spread. Their inaction would actually be more beneficial than what they are currently doing.

Edit: made a whoops, now have removed it. (I said "only says" which was not accurate, and I don't know how to add strikethrough on mobile.)

0

Regayov t1_ivcct0a wrote

> The AG said “disinformation.” So you aren’t actually in disagreement with the AG.

The AG, or at least its web post, used both dis- and mis-.

1

FarmerHandsome t1_ivce78h wrote

Right, so the people who start the spread are providing disinformation. Those who aren't clever enough to figure out that they're being lied to then spread that same information and it becomes misinformation (because the intent is not to cause harm). My original definition lacked nuance. I hope this clears up why the AG uses both terms in the quotes.

1

[deleted] t1_ivceun4 wrote

No, it would only be a lie if the person knowingly stated it. A person could believe it (misinformed) and be wrong but not a liar. This is a mistake often used by CNN.

3

FarmerHandsome t1_ivcf0na wrote

Very fair. I added this bit of nuance in a later comment in this thread.

2