THREAD: CLEARING UP A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT "MISINFORMATION"
1/
I am seeing a lot of this sort of response to Covid commentators being reinstated on Twitter: that it is dangerous to public health because they were guilty of "misinformation."
Let's get a few things straight:
1/
I am seeing a lot of this sort of response to Covid commentators being reinstated on Twitter: that it is dangerous to public health because they were guilty of "misinformation."
Let's get a few things straight:
2/
1. More likely than not, ANYONE who comments on a public issue for a protracted period will get something wrong, eventually, because they are human and the available evidence is often mixed or limited. So technically, most people ocasionally say things that are false.
1. More likely than not, ANYONE who comments on a public issue for a protracted period will get something wrong, eventually, because they are human and the available evidence is often mixed or limited. So technically, most people ocasionally say things that are false.
3/
2. A mistaken assumption/conclusion is not "misinformation." "Misinformation," if it is at all meaningful, might refer to assertions that blatantly contradict facts that were beyond question at the time of utterance.
2. A mistaken assumption/conclusion is not "misinformation." "Misinformation," if it is at all meaningful, might refer to assertions that blatantly contradict facts that were beyond question at the time of utterance.
4/
3. Covid debates involved SOME undisputed facts, but they also involved matters that were inherently debateable, not "beyond question," like vaccine safety & the efficacy of lockdowns. So charging one side of such debates with "misinformation" is utterly disingenuous.
3. Covid debates involved SOME undisputed facts, but they also involved matters that were inherently debateable, not "beyond question," like vaccine safety & the efficacy of lockdowns. So charging one side of such debates with "misinformation" is utterly disingenuous.
5/
4. It's as silly to accuse a vaccine critic of "misinformation" as to accuse a critic of the welfare state of "misinformation." In both cases, complex, debateable issues like risk assessment & public morality are involved. Engage with the argument, don't MISLABEL the argument
4. It's as silly to accuse a vaccine critic of "misinformation" as to accuse a critic of the welfare state of "misinformation." In both cases, complex, debateable issues like risk assessment & public morality are involved. Engage with the argument, don't MISLABEL the argument
6/
5. If we accept that debateable views about vaccine safety, lockdowns, & Covid treatment are not susceptible to misinformation charges, that does not mean they are true or especially plausible. They can be challenged & their merits put to the test in an open debate.
5. If we accept that debateable views about vaccine safety, lockdowns, & Covid treatment are not susceptible to misinformation charges, that does not mean they are true or especially plausible. They can be challenged & their merits put to the test in an open debate.
7/
6. I celebrate the reinstatement of Covid commentators on Twitter, not because I think they are necessarily RIGHT in all their claims, but because I think a rigid epistemic hierarchy in which some have the power to silence others is a sham. There is no monopoly over knowledge
6. I celebrate the reinstatement of Covid commentators on Twitter, not because I think they are necessarily RIGHT in all their claims, but because I think a rigid epistemic hierarchy in which some have the power to silence others is a sham. There is no monopoly over knowledge
8/
7. The right to speak or express an opinion in a public forum like Twitter (yes, it is a public forum) is not contingent on a prior guarantee that everything you ever said will be or has been correct. Rather, it is a way to ensure a fair hearing for diverse perspectives.
7. The right to speak or express an opinion in a public forum like Twitter (yes, it is a public forum) is not contingent on a prior guarantee that everything you ever said will be or has been correct. Rather, it is a way to ensure a fair hearing for diverse perspectives.
9/
8. To attempt to silence opinions because SOME "experts" out there think they are mistaken is to corrupt a fundamental principle of free public discourse, namely, that the truth emerges through a vibrant exchange of arguments, in which NOBODY is beyond challenge.
8. To attempt to silence opinions because SOME "experts" out there think they are mistaken is to corrupt a fundamental principle of free public discourse, namely, that the truth emerges through a vibrant exchange of arguments, in which NOBODY is beyond challenge.
10/
9. Ironically, those who claim that anyone guilty of "misinformation" should be purged from the public sphere, often think they are improving the quality of public debate. In fact, whether intentionally or not, they are in fact corrupting the public sphere.
9. Ironically, those who claim that anyone guilty of "misinformation" should be purged from the public sphere, often think they are improving the quality of public debate. In fact, whether intentionally or not, they are in fact corrupting the public sphere.
11/
10. Finally, it is worth underlining the fact that the illicit weaponisation of βmisinformationβ is not just a Covid problem. It sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for scientific & moral debate in a free society. As such, we must expose this charade & being an end to it.
10. Finally, it is worth underlining the fact that the illicit weaponisation of βmisinformationβ is not just a Covid problem. It sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for scientific & moral debate in a free society. As such, we must expose this charade & being an end to it.
Loading suggestions...