From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:50:25 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:   
   >   
   >> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?   
   >   
   > The question is not “who”, the question is “how”. There are   
   well-known   
   > techniques for verifying information. The good journalists know about   
   > those.   
      
   Well no, there are not.   
      
   Especially when it comes to data interpretation.   
      
   "Rise in air traffic since WWII triggers global warming"   
      
   Consider that.   
      
   or   
      
   "Global warming triggers rise in carbon dioxide"   
      
   or   
      
     "Rise in number of people declaring themselves to be transgender shows   
   evolution is happening"   
      
      
   All these are the sorts of headlines that are perfectly in line with   
   what headlines say, but they are all expressing *metaphysical*   
   propositions. Propositions that you cannot proved to be either true OR   
   false.   
      
   The essence of a good conspiracy theory is that it *might* be true.   
   Just. If you are reasonably ignorant.   
      
   For all I know King Charles *is* a giant lizard when he goes to bed at   
   night.   
      
   And then there is misleading by omission.   
      
   "The rally was attended by only 30 villagers"   
      
   But 30,000 activists were bussed in from London and other major cities.   
      
   "The minster was caught with his pants down"   
   ...when a gas blast  destroyed the wall to his toilet.   
      
      
   And then there is misleading information that is never actually claimed   
   to be true..   
      
   "Professor H calculated that Windscale would result in over 3,000 excess   
   deaths from cancer"   
      
   ...using a model of radiation damage since shown to be totally false.   
      
   You simply cant police it 'fairly' because no one knows what the truth   
   actually *is*.   
      
   The current drive towards suppressing misinformation relies on a   
   religious dogma: E.g. IF you believe in catastrophic man made climate   
   change THEN anyone who disagrees is ipso facto 'spreading false   
   information'.   
      
   It's no different from Galileo and the Church.   
      
   All this is cat belling nonsense. We know what we would like. Facts. But   
   who will get them, and why would they bother when lies are far more   
   interesting, and profitable?   
      
   --   
   "The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll   
   look exactly the same afterwards."   
      
   Billy Connolly   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)