Posted on 03/09/2023 7:59:51 PM PST by DoodleBob
...Misinformation contains content that is false, misleading, or taken out of context but without any intent to deceive.
When family members share bogus health claims or political conspiracy theories on Facebook, they’re not trying to trick you—they’re under the impression that they’re passing along legit information. In reality, they’re spreading misinformation.
Examples of misinformation
Misinformation ran rampant at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. Consider claims of false COVID-19 treatments that spread across social media like, well, the virus they claimed to cure. Those who shared inaccurate information and misleading statistics weren’t doing it to harm people. In fact, most were convinced they were helping.
This type of false information can also include satire or humor erroneously shared as truth. “Misinformation can be your Uncle Bob [saying], ‘I’m passing this along because I saw this,'” Watzman notes.
...
Disinformation is false or misleading content purposefully created with an intent to deceive and cause harm. It’s typically motivated by three factors: political power or influence, profit, or the desire to sow chaos and confusion....While many Americans first became aware of this problem during the 2016 presidential election, when Russia launched a massive disinformation campaign to influence the outcome, the phenomenon has been around for centuries.
...
In general, the primary difference between disinformation and misinformation is intent. Both are forms of fake info, but disinformation is created and shared with the goal of causing harm.
Usually, misinformation falls under the classification of free speech. But disinformation often contains slander or hate speech against certain groups of people, which is not protected under the First Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at rd.com ...
This article didn’t age well.
Of course it is.
Actually it is protected by the First Amendment.
“which is not protected under the First Amendment.”
And just like that. The first amendment is eliminated.
And they wonder why we distrust the MSM.
libelous and slanderous speech cannot be criminalized if it does not contain direct threats to do bodily harm. It may be libel under the civil law, however, but prior restraint is unConstitutional.
Wow! The article basically says that both dis- and mis- information are harmful but one of them is against the law. Their examples include information regarding Covid, treatments, and the vaccine. RD is actually providing both dis- and mis- information in this article. And actually neither one is illegal, especially since their definition of such is only a matter of opinion. There is no legal definition of either term as far as I know.
Slander and libel have their own legal definitions and evidence required to prove such.
The left continues to change the meanings of words, create new words which only they get to determine the definition, and punish those who disagree with them by creating a narrative that only they can set standards which others must live by.
Lemme see if I’ve got this straight: it appears that the difference between dis- and mis- comes entirely down to “intent”. Got it. Or not...
Q: does it require two lawyers, a judge and a jury to make a determination if it’s mis- or dis-?
Q2: what difference, at this late date, does IT MAKE???????
Which Constitution does Red Digest find that bit of mis-dis-information?
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Where does it say:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech that has been sanitized for hateful or spiteful intent, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
>> hate speech against certain groups of people, which is not protected under the First Amendment
I hate those that write for Red’s Digest and all similar media. They’re woke, probably mostly alphabet people, and I want them all hung with piano wire from lamp-posts for what they’re doing to my country.
There you go, Laurie! Come and get me. I dare you.
LOL. Almost entirely disinformation.
Disinformation and misinformation are the same, in that they are both information that our rulers would find to be inconvenient truths were they understood by the hoi polloi.
That was added in the 27th Amendment, so a groomer teacher told me.
I agree with you, and yet.....how do we have “hate crimes” if the IA protects speech? Shoot someone illegally, AND yell a “racist” or “sexist” etc. term while doing it, and now it’s TWO crimes. That just doesn’t sit well with me, yet it seems to be the law of the land. Can anyone ‘splain this to me?
Once upon a time, Reader’s Digest seemed conservative or middle of the road. Not anymore.
What you did there, I see it!
So the article about “misinformation” peddles misinformation...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.