Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

bans for false information

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    however when that person returns to you with documentary evidence from a series of sources then Like it or not tis quite possibly factual.

    Possibly factual...with emphasies on the possibly part.

    When you have a number of source who say "A is true", and you have a number of source who say "A is false", then its possible for either one to be correct....but rare that both are.

    Ultimately, though, it would be pointless to try and ban false facts, because even if we could define what it was, there are any number of ways around it.

    If I were to say that MyCrazySource claims that the world is flat...that's not a false fact...if that is indeed what MyCrazySource claims. As long as I don't say that the world is flat, I'm not saying anything false. The fact is that MyCrazySource believes the world to be flat.

    I could alternately use this fact to generate a series of questions....MyCrazySource says that the world is flat. Is there any possibility that this is so? Can we really prove that it isn't? Again, I'm not giving any false information. I'm correctly stating what MyCrazySource is saying, and I'm then proceeding from a position that I want to see if we can definitively show that position to be wrong.

    Its all sleight of hand, of course. In all cases, my aim would be to put forward the suggestion that the world is flat....but I'm never actually making that claim.

    Now...this is (obviously) a simple example, even though there are allegedly still flat-earthers still out there. Imagine, though, that we're not talking about something so cut-and-dried....something where its not so clear what the facts are. In such cases, its trivial to muddy the waters with false information, without ever actually claiming it as fact.

    All that aside...if MyCrazySource then signs up to boards.ie....should he/she be banned for saying "I believe the world is flat"? What if htey say "The world is flat...and here's why..." ? At what point do we decide that something is a deliberate attempt to mislead and not a genuinely held but incorrect belief?

    If we don't make that distinction, then the proposal is to ban people for believing something that's wrong....and not just for deliberately trying to mislead others.


  • Options
    #33
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    This would turn into a minefield of conflicting sources and reports. To given an example throughout the last lebanon/israel war there were advocacy groups who signed up here (http://giyus.org/) and began posting as if they were just another regular poster.

    In a situation where amnesty and the UN & other Human rights organisations routinely create reports which are highly critical of israeli military behaviour and where the Israel Defence Forces almost always routinely create reports to counter the allegations and find themselves innocent - who is to say which is 'fact' and which is not. Both sides can quote sources and reports and 'facts' at will & both sides discredit the other vehemently.

    A rule like this would allow advocacy groups a loophole to exploit in order to stifle any discussion about grey areas which they would prefer were not mentioned.


  • Options
    #34
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    There should be some kind of demand for a VERY high burden of proof in the conspiracy theories forum. The anti-vaccine stuff is getting out of hand in there, and it's not fair on the parents who might stumble across it, or the likes of me who really feel an obligation to spend a lot of time countering the information.

    I think the political conspiracy stuff is fine. But the health stuff really does sow seeds of doubt in people's minds.


  • Options
    #35
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    There should be some kind of demand for a VERY high burden of proof in the conspiracy theories forum. The anti-vaccine stuff is getting out of hand in there, and it's not fair on the parents who might stumble across it, or the likes of me who really feel an obligation to spend a lot of time countering the information.

    I think the political conspiracy stuff is fine. But the health stuff really does sow seeds of doubt in people's minds.

    The stuff about the vaccine in that forum is posted on many other conspiracy sites

    Why should discussion be disallowed? I mean if anyone chooses to believe the stuff posted on a Conspiracy Theory forum and neglects to rely more on actual professional opinion, that's their loss


  • Options
    #36
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    My name is URL wrote: »
    The stuff about the vaccine in that forum is posted on many other conspiracy sites

    Why should discussion be disallowed? I mean if anyone chooses to believe the stuff posted on a Conspiracy Theory forum and neglects to rely more on actual professional opinion, that's their loss

    Well, if a child's parent is gullible enough to believe the stuff posted on that forum, the kid is being punished, and it's their health that will suffer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Well, if a child's parent is gullible enough to believe the stuff posted on that forum, the kid is being punished, and it's their health that will suffer.

    Fair enough, but I doubt that many would place faith in the stuff being posted there

    and what better way to fuel a conspiracy theory than to disallow any reference to it? =p


  • Options
    #38
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Fair enough, but I doubt that many would place faith in the stuff being posted there

    and what better way to fuel a conspiracy theory than to disallow any reference to it? =p

    I agree. But there should be a strict burden of proof. There's a guy there at the minute and he's posted a graph, claiming to show whooping cough vaccine is useless because it hasn't affected infant mortality. The graph doesn't even show infant mortality from whooping cough.

    That kind of thing causes problems. It's ok for me, as I don't take graphs at face value, but some ppl do.


  • Options
    #39
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    I agree. But there should be a strict burden of proof. There's a guy there at the minute and he's posted a graph, claiming to show whooping cough vaccine is useless because it hasn't affected infant mortality. The graph doesn't even show infant mortality from whooping cough.

    That kind of thing causes problems. It's ok for me, as I don't take graphs at face value, but some ppl do.

    Ah I see what you mean, I just read a few of his posts now. I definitely agree with you about citing sources when posting graphs or studies etc while claiming them to be true.


Advertisement