Yes, it's a very tricky call, tbh.

We absolutely need to counter disinformation (again: actual disinformation: knowingly false, non-satirical, propaganda designed to damage the person who believes it) if it's already spread. However, it also makes sense to stop it's spread early by removing it's accessibility early on.

This is why I specifically carve out: "genuine belief". It's a subjective call, but if you believe disinformation... your actually the victim of it. You need to know what it is, and to have it countered.

However, if it's clear you're spreading the disinformation because you are the aggressor, it should be censored and removed.

This is why misinformation shouldn't be acted against. It's just a mistake. You believed something that's wrong, that's not even a problem, and can be so broad that it makes a moderator an "arbiter of truth". You don't want to do that either.

Disinformation is a weapon, fired at the innocent, by an enemy. Remove the enemy, not the victim.

It's subjective, but it's also why I rarely ever remove anything for Disinformation. I think I've done it maybe twice. Again: it was knowingly false information spread by someone who knew it to be false in order to make others believe in the lie. And it wasn't some obvious falsehood like hyperbole. It was false enough to make you realize that OP knew better, but pushed it anyway to fuck with people. It's very contextual: not "OP should have known better", but "OP did know better and is playing stupid."

So, for example, Imp makes a post. I know Imp believes women are genocidal. He's already clearly tipped his hand to his specific bugaboo. But he makes a post that says, "Local woman kills man for rejecting her!", and he posts a screenshot of an article which claim that "neighbors say the man may have met her at a local bar". But, someone realizes that there's a video that's been released to the public that shows her yelling, "give me all your money!" and the police are claiming that they are investigating a robbery. Worse, it's in the article that he screenshotted instead of linked.

Well, where the hell did "rejecting her" come from? Nowhere, he inserted it. "Met at a local bar" doesn't really tell us anything, and the article couched the words in qualifiers, meaning they don't even know that it's true. Moreover, there's evidence that it was a stick-up.

So, what happened here? This is right-up imp's bias. He inserted a fact that didn't exist. He ignored contradictory evidence to his claim. He likely would have seen it in the article, and intentionally cropped it out. To me, the fact that he inserted information and excluded contradictory evidence, but didn't give people the ability to check him, would demonstrate his "mens rea" of a malicious sort. Hence, it's not just an accident from bias or bigotry, but intentional disinformation. It should be removed before others buy into it, and he should be punished for pushing it.

Yes, it's a very tricky call, tbh.

We absolutely need to counter disinformation (again: actual disinformation: knowingly false, non-satirical, propaganda designed to damage the person who believes it) if it's already spread. However, it also makes sense to stop it's spread early by removing it's accessibility early on.

This is why I specifically carve out: "genuine belief". It's a subjective call, but if you believe disinformation... your actually the victim of it. You need to know what it is, and to have it countered.

However, if it's clear you're spreading the disinformation because you are the aggressor, it should be censored and removed.

This is why misinformation shouldn't be acted against. It's just a mistake. You believed something that's wrong, that's not even a problem, and can be so broad that it makes a moderator an "arbiter of truth". You don't want to do that either.

Disinformation is a weapon, fired at the innocent, by an enemy. Remove the enemy, not the victim.

It's subjective, but it's also why I rarely ever remove anything for Disinformation. I think I've done it maybe twice. Again: it was knowingly false information spread by someone who knew it to be false in order to make others believe in the lie. And it wasn't some obvious falsehood like hyperbole. It was false enough to make you realize that OP knew better, but pushed it anyway to fuck with people. It's very contextual: not "OP should have known better", but "OP did know better and is playing stupid."

So, for example, Imp makes a post. I know Imp believes women are genocidal. He's already clearly tipped his hand to his specific bugaboo. But he makes a post that says, "Local woman kills man for rejecting her!", and he posts a screenshot of an article which claim that "neighbors say the man may have met her at a local bar". But, someone realizes that there's a video that's been released to the public that shows her yelling, "give me all your money!" and the police are claiming that they are investigating a robbery. Worse, it's in the article that he screenshotted instead of linked.

Well, where the hell did "rejecting her" come from? Nowhere, he inserted it. "Met at a local bar" doesn't really tell us anything, and the article couched the words in qualifiers, meaning they don't even know that it's true. Moreover, there's evidence that it was a stick-up.

So, what happened here? This is right-up imp's bias. He inserted a fact that didn't exist. He ignored contradictory evidence to his claim. He likely would have seen it in the article, and intentionally cropped it out. To me, the fact that he inserted information and excluded contradictory evidence, but didn't give people the ability to check him, would demonstrate his "mens rea" of a malicious sort. Hence, it's not just an accident from bias or bigotry, but intentional disinformation.

Yes, it's a very tricky call, tbh.

We absolutely need to counter disinformation (again: actual disinformation: knowingly false, non-satirical, propaganda designed to damage the person who believes it) if it's already spread. However, it also makes sense to stop it's spread early by removing it's accessibility early on.

This is why I specifically carve out: "genuine belief". It's a subjective call, but if you believe disinformation... your actually the victim of it. You need to know what it is, and to have it countered.

However, if it's clear you're spreading the disinformation because you are the aggressor, it should be censored and removed.

This is why misinformation shouldn't be acted against. It's just a mistake. You believed something that's wrong, that's not even a problem, and can be so broad that it makes a moderator an "arbiter of truth". You don't want to do that either.

Disinformation is a weapon, fired at the innocent, by an enemy. Remove the enemy, not the victim.

It's subjective, but it's also why I rarely ever remove anything for Disinformation. I think I've done it maybe twice. Again: it was knowingly false information spread by someone who knew it to be false in order to make others believe in the lie. And it wasn't some obvious falsehood like hyperbole. It was false enough to make you realize that OP knew better, but pushed it anyway to fuck with people. It's very contextual: not "OP should have known better", but "OP did know better and is playing stupid."

So, for example, Imp makes a post. I know Imp believes women are genocidal. He's already clearly tipped his hand to his specific bugaboo. But he makes a post that says, "Local woman kills man for rejecting her!", and he posts a screenshot of an article which claim that "neighbors say the man may have met her at a local bar". But, someone realizes that there's a video that's been released to the public that shows her yelling, "give me all your money!" and the police are claiming that they are investigating a robbery. Worse, it's in the article that he screenshotted instead of linked.

Well, where the hell did "rejecting her" come from? Nowhere, he inserted it. "Met at a local bar" doesn't really tell us anything, and the article couched the words in qualifiers, meaning they don't even know that it's true. Moreover, there's evidence that it was a stick-up.

So, what happened here? This is right-up imp's bias. He inserted a fact that didn't exist. He ignored contradictory evidence to his claim. He likely would have seen it in the article, and intentionally cropped it out. To me, the fact that he inserted information and excluded contradictory evidence, but didn't give people the ability to check him, would demonstrate his "mens rea" of a malicious sort. Hence, it's not just an accident from bias or bigotry, but disinformation.

Yes, it's a very tricky call, tbh.

We absolutely need to counter disinformation (again: actual disinformation: knowingly false, non-satirical, propaganda designed to damage the person who believes it) if it's already spread. However, it also makes sense to stop it's spread early by removing it's accessibility early on.

This is why I specifically carve out: "genuine belief". It's a subjective call, but if you believe disinformation... your actually the victim of it. You need to know what it is, and to have it countered.

However, if it's clear you're spreading the disinformation because you are the aggressor, it should be censored and removed.

This is why misinformation shouldn't be acted against. It's just a mistake. You believed something that's wrong, that's not even a problem, and can be so broad that it makes a moderator an "arbiter of truth". You don't want to do that either.

Disinformation is a weapon, fired at the innocent, by an enemy. Remove the enemy, not the victim.

It's subjective, but it's also why I rarely ever remove anything for Disinformation. I think I've done it maybe twice. Again: it was knowingly false information spread by someone who knew it to be false in order to make others believe in the lie. And it wasn't some obvious falsehood like hyperbole. It was false enough to make you realize that OP knew better, but pushed it anyway to fuck with people. It's very contextual: not "OP should have known better", but "OP did know better and is playing stupid."

So, for example, Imp makes a post. I know Imp believes women are genocidal. He's already clearly tipped his hand to his specific bugaboo. But he makes a post that says, "Local woman kills man for rejecting her!", and he posts a screenshot of an article which claim that "neighbors say the man may have met her at a local bar". But, someone realizes that there's a video that's been released to the public that shows her yelling, "give me all your money!" and the police are claiming that they are investigating a robbery. Worse, it's in the article that he screenshotted instead of linked.

Well, where the hell did "rejecting her" come from? Nowhere, he inserted it. "Met at a local bar" doesn't really tell us anything, and the article couched the words in qualifiers, meaning they don't even know that it's true. Moreover, there's evidence that it was a stick-up.

So, what happened here? This is right-up imp's bias. He inserted a fact that didn't exist. He ignored contradictory evidence to his claim. He likely would have seen it in the article, and intentionally cropped it out. To me, the fact that he inserted information and excluded contradictory evidence, but didn't give people the ability to check him, would demonstrate his "mens rea" of a malicious sort.

Yes, it's a very tricky call, tbh.

We absolutely need to counter disinformation (again: actual disinformation: knowingly false, non-satirical, propaganda designed to damage the person who believes it) if it's already spread. However, it also makes sense to stop it's spread early by removing it's accessibility early on.

This is why I specifically carve out: "genuine belief". It's a subjective call, but if you believe disinformation... your actually the victim of it. You need to know what it is, and to have it countered.

However, if it's clear you're spreading the disinformation because you are the aggressor, it should be censored and removed.

This is why misinformation shouldn't be acted against. It's just a mistake. You believed something that's wrong, that's not even a problem, and can be so broad that it makes a moderator an "arbiter of truth". You don't want to do that either.

Disinformation is a weapon, fired at the innocent, by an enemy. Remove the enemy, not the victim.

It's subjective, but it's also why I rarely ever remove anything for Disinformation. I think I've done it maybe twice. Again: it was knowingly false information spread by someone who knew it to be false in order to make others believe in the lie. And it wasn't some obvious falsehood like hyperbole. It was false enough to make you realize that OP knew better, but pushed it anyway to fuck with people. It's very contextual: not "OP should have known better", but "OP did know better and is playing stupid."