Hillary wants (not unusually) to have her political enemies arrested. She says that people who post “misinformation” could be “criminally charged”, and that this would be “a deterrent” against “misinformation.” In California, Gruesome Newsom “signed a bill into law Tuesday banning the distribution of ‘election communications that contain materially deceptive content,’ including obvious parodies.” This would likely include “mis-” or “disinformation”.
This being so, we need to understand precisely what “misinformation” is.
I came across a peer-reviewed paper from the leading Regime training camp with the title “A survey of expert views on misinformation: Definitions, determinants, solutions, and future of the field“. They said Expert “views diverged on the importance of intentionality and what exactly constitutes misinformation.” They concluded amazing things like “pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are misinformation, while satirical news is not.”
Of course, there is no such thing as pseudoscience: there is only good and bad science. Some conspiracy theories are false, some true, and some uncertain on the information available to those outside real conspiracies.
These Experts thus did not do a marvelous job. And anyway, I didn’t think it was that hard to define these terms. So I did so.
The Briggs definition of misinformation are propositions which are claimed true but which are provably false, or which are claimed false but which are provably true. The truths are with respect to observations or necessary truths. Disinformation is no different, except with respect to motivation: those who produce misinformation are sincere in their errors (they do not know they make a mistake), while those who produce disinformation are insincere (they know they are lying).
A classic example of disinformation is when the Fabulous Fauci, and his CDC counterpart Rochelle Walenski, came out during the covid panic and swore that those who were vaxed could not become sick and could not pass on the virus. They knew this was false, and so were lying.
Both persons were members of the government, and their words became parts of official policies. So their lies became Official Truths. Which shows that Official Truths can be actual lies. Official Truths are those propositions claimed true by rulers. It does not follow that all Official Truths are lies: some might be true. Since Official Truths are often used in propaganda, and it being a good rule of propaganda to mix in actual truth with lies, Official Truths can be useful truths.
In logic, the contrary of any truth is a falsity, and the contrary of any falsity is a truth. By analogy, the contraries of Official Truths are Official Misinformation or Official Disinformation, depending on the ascribed motivation of those giving out unofficial propositions. Though this is looser, because rulers will often use the terms interchangeably. When an Official Truth is an actual lie, its contrary is an actual falsity. The contraries of Official Misinformation or Official Disinformation are Official Truths. When the Official Mis- or Disinformation is an actual lie, its contraries are actual truths.
This fluidity in Official propositions makes it all somewhat difficult to discern what is happening when Official Truths or Official Mis- or Disinformation are being discussed.
A real truth, however, is that no truth is a truth because rulers have said so, nor is any falsity a falsity because rulers have said so. That is the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which, of course, rulers are keen on when their Official Truths are actual lies, and vice versa. As always in logic, every proposition must be judged on its own merit, and with respect to the premises, assumptions, evidence, observations that one assume holds.
Here is an example, in a headline: “France’s CNews fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged“.
A popular French rolling news channel has been fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged…
It was accused of allowing one of its guests to defend a controversial thesis on the human origin of climate change – without providing any rebuttal…
It’s in extra hot water this week, though, with the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (Arcom) fining the channel €20,000 for broadcasting controversial climate scepticism without balanced reporting.
“This is the first time in France and internationally that Arcom or a regulatory authority has issued a financial sanction for a breach concerning an environmental subject,” QuotaClimat, an association that campaigns for better media coverage of ecological issues, said in response.
The French government has tacitly assumed the Official Truth that “climate change”—left vague and undefined—has one cause and they know what it is. The government’s proposition cannot be backed up with certainty. After all, how many times have we heard (the ridiculous) statistic “97% climate scientists agree”? That means, logically, that some disagree. Therefore, it is not a certainty that “climate change”, whatever that might be, has one certain cause.
Rulers allow, in the magnanimity, the airing of disagreements of this Official Truth, but insist these disagreements are accompanied by statements of the Official Truth. Understand exactly where the lie is: if French rulers merely said that there is a chance, and the chance was anything less than certainty, their preferred theory was correct, their Official Truth would be an actual truth. As it is, it a lie and used in the service of propaganda.
Thus uncertain propositions which carry their uncertainty with them can never be falsities; they are true propositions as long as the stated uncertainties (numerical or verbal) accord with the assumed or presumed true evidence. (Those following the Class with grasp this.) Example: “I think this-and-such conspiracy theory is true for the following reasons” cannot be a falsity, unless at least one of the reason can be shown to be indubitably false. When the reasons are themselves only uncertain, there is no falsity, and therefore any ruler labeling the proposition as Official Mis- or Disinformation has committed a fallacy.
Here is another example, from someone who went through Twitter’s algorithm to see which tweets were boosted and which suppressed. The code reveals downweighting for “misinformation”. That must necessarily mean that Twitter holds a list of Official Truths—at the least the contraries of the “misinformation”. We don’t see what this “misinformation” is, except that it is broken down by type, such as Civic, Medical, and Emergency, so we cannot judge the veracity of the propositions. We don’t know who specifies these Official Truths.
There are clues, however, because rulers in Australia announce they want to fine companies like Twitter “up to 5%” of their global revenue for “enabling misinformation.” According to one story, “The government said it would make tech platforms set codes of conduct governing how they stop dangerous falsehoods spreading, to be approved by a regulator.”
This must mean that these tech platforms have a list of Official Truths, or that they have a “portal” or some access point where rulers can insert these Official Truths.
“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy,” said Communications Minister Michelle Rowland in a statement.
“Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option.”
Yes, it is. Doing nothing is often the exact right thing to do. As it is, it is a good bet that even if rulers start out with nothing but necessary truths on their list of Official Truths, they will very quickly let the power to define Official Truth go to their narrow heads. And indeed that is what we saw in the covid panic.
This becomes crucially important when we recall the EU, as stated by Ursula von der Leyen, says “the biggest threats” to her Regime are Official Mis- and Disinformation. They will crack down with the Digital Services Act. Which, again, necessarily means the EU will and must hold a list of Official Truths.
If this list contained only true truths, it would be no bad thing. The gathering or policing of Official Truths is only a problem when the list has falsities. As, we might guess, this one will.
Another example: “A new law in Scotland threatens you with seven years in JAIL if you misgender someone.” (JK Rowling famously is bucking this law.) Rulers in Scotland have defined a falsity as an Official Truth, and will punish those who tell the truth.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Famous Statistician, Statistician to the Stars, you have truly earned your monikers with this post. I followed all the logic easily, which is rare because some people aren’t so logical and others are better at using symbolic logic notation than I am. (Maybe just better at logic than I am!) But you kept it simple and straightforward with your definitions of misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, official versions of the truth, and most disturbing of all, the List of Official Truths.
It is unfortunate what France has done, fining a media broadcaster for not contesting the regime beliefs about climate change. It is their country, they are The French, they have the Academie Francaise (an official language rule-making body), and I hope they have codified their balance-in-media directives. We had the Mayflower Doctrine, followed by the Fairness Doctrine in America. They were enforced guidelines about presenting both sides of an issue in certain limited contexts (electoral candidates and maybe policy proposals when aired by public broadcasters and the major media NBC, CBS, ABC? I forgot the specifics) but were overturned as impossible to implement and maybe 1st Amendment-unfriendly by the FCC and SCOTUS sometime in the 1970s or so. So good luck with that, France. France makes Google issue public apologies on TV and major newspapers when they break French law in some egregious way, and Google is free to deny their services to France in return.
Australia is far more dangerous and frightening. Fining companies up to 5% of their GLOBAL REVENUE for allowing Australia’s version of mis- or dis-information, i.e. anything contradicting Australia’s List of Official Truths, is analogous to allowing Stalin to extend his monopoly on truth beyond the USSR, beyond the former Soviet bloc and Iron Curtain countries, to the entire world.
I wonder if the List of Official Truths of Australia are the same as those of the EU. There is a hint of such in the Land of the Free if Twitter, even under Elon Musk who is much hated by many for allowing too much free speech, has an algorithm in place that throttles and limits exposure of certain Civil, Medical, and Emergency categories of content by algorithmic means. Sorry for the run-on sentence. The horror common to all of this, be it Twitter, Australia, France, or the EU, is that the List of Official Truths are not even shared with the public. Only are rulers are allowed to know.
Is atheism disinformation/misinformation?
I can make a very good case that atheism is based on bad logic using the evidence developed by accepted science. So is anyone advocating it or spreading it guilty of violating the California law?
Now nearly everyone would say that is ludicrous even if proof of atheism as bogus was very sound/valid which I believe it is.
Let the trials begin.
Aside: I’m not advocating using the law to prosecute atheists because it would lead us down a far worse path. I’m advocating defeating atheism by using science and logic which most would agree is a difficult goal.
The most interesting thing about misinformation/disinformation is that those advocating for its prosecution cannot agree on what it is.
Oh, there is current agreement on things they do not like which they will prosecute. But once these are eliminated they will not stop. There will be new forms of what they do not like that many of the previous advocates for prosecution endorsed. So they too will be prosecuted. Until only what those who are left in power espouse.
The Montagnards always attack the Girondists. Until there only a few Montagnards are left. Remember, Robespierre went to the guillotine.
This will always be the case. The eternal fight between truth and non-truth. It has nothing to do with truth. It is about power.
I’m not exactly sure what the solution to disinformation and misinformation could be. This really is a problem. “Influencers” spread lies, misinformation, disinformation and propaganda by the bucket load.
Look at what happened with the tenet media thing. Everyone is hung up on the Russia part. Partisans take their side. Progs say Russia bad, Russian money worse. Cons say the “influencers” dindu nuffin because they didn’t know. Absolutely nobody is talking about the fact that they all had their voice for sale to the highest bidder. Of course, none of them say “this program brought to you by….”
Does anyone remember the recycling bins not catching fire because of the blue space lasers in Hawaii? Or aliens at the mall in Florida? The examples are endless.
While I would never endorse the idea of either the state or their lackeys in the social media companies have any Official Truth policies, this problem is continuously getting worse and not better. Most people are not plugged in and they aren’t cynical or bright enough. Plus, the social media companies are in on it when they can profit from it. A couple of weeks ago my adblocker for youtube slowed to an absolute crawl to the point being unusable. So I’ve been bombarded with ads from youtube. At least 1/2 of them are just outright scams. Amazon is loaded with scam products and fake reviews.
Of course, Briggs is immune to misinformation and disinformation because he is an educated expert in areas such as climate change and infectious diseases. (Climate scientists and climatologists would disagree with me on whether he is an expert, but who cares, they are stupid liberals.) He also doesn’t spread misinformation and disinformation because he is not an elitist, liberal, or an expert in anything. He doesn’t listen to NPR, and Twitter is his main source of information.
And if you disagree with me, you aren’t being logical. Which is the absolute truth.
I guess I’ll have to take Scotland off my bucket list of places to go. There is no way I will ever, under any conceivable circumstances, refer to anyone’s gender contrary to the way they were born. No government (or house full of woke in-laws) will ever force me to participate in that delusional game.
Good, good!
Hopefully all this talky-paranoia infrastructure is in place for when Christianity takes back the power! I relish the opportunity to dispose of my enemies, and I shall do so with the full blessing of my conscience!
Meanwhile, Twitter should ban all government and media accounts for mis/dis/mal-information. Use all that fancy AI to fact-check and community note every gov post and mainstream propagandist claim. In real-time, all the time, even interrupting them as they are busy typing it out.
Of course you’re right about that Briggs, but what about Jew bombs in my phone, eh? If I hit “Post Comment” do I blow up? Only one way to find out… let’s see, “Pos–KABOOM!-BLAMMO!-BAM! BAM! BAM! ……. oy vey……
Keep in mind that they won’t stop at even so-called “disinformation.” When they speak of disinformation they have to at least pretend that it is false, even if they know it is true and later admit is true (the fact that the covid jabs would not make you completely immune to covid is a good example of this.) But there is also “malinformation” which is information that even they admit is true, but which cannot be allowed because it is “harmful.” For example, suppose that the Scottish government is forced to admit that men who call themselves women are not really women. They can still say that “misgendering” is harmful, and therefore ban it for that reason as “malinformation.” I would not be surprised if in the future they invent yet another term for information which they have admitted is true, and which does not harm anyone, but which still might be suppressed simply because the ruling class does not like it.
Your definitions:
—
The Briggs definition of misinformation are propositions which are claimed true but which are provably false, or which are claimed false but which are provably true. The truths are with respect to observations or necessary truths. Disinformation is no different, except with respect to motivation: those who produce misinformation are sincere in their errors (they do not know they make a mistake), while those who produce disinformation are insincere (they know they are lying).
—
are pretty much mine too. The question, of course, is how to tell which is which.
In physics (including applied physics – e.g. engineering) this is fairly easy because you can suspend judgment until someone can run a test against reality and meanwhile carry on treating plausible conjectures as plausible but not necessary. It’s harder with math because the reality test can be fairly distant ( 😉 (and the logic can be incomprehensible without ( or, speaking personally, sometimes with) years of study. )
But in politics and related public issues? not a chance without a time machine. Now, we know the score for theories over a year old is running something like: conspiracy theories 53: talking heads (democrats/media etc) 0; but you can’t always project that to assume everything they say is either misinformation based on disinformation they believed or straight up disinformation. So, as you’ve pointed out quite often, differentiation requires a source of TRUTH and if government, or the washington post, appoints itself to that role, well.. some disbelief seems warranted. X’s community notes (pioneered by ebay) seems like a step in the right direction – but it all depends on the quality of the commentariat. Reddit, after all, sells tulips.