Misinformation and RF

[an anarchist]

Little experiment I want to try on the topic of misinformation here on RF.

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

A valuable independent media source I follow was on YouTube when I found him in my teens. He kept warning that eventually he and other like sources would be labeled as “misinformation” and removed from mainstream services. I doubted him, and for several years I watched him on YouTube. But then all at once “misinformation” was mainstream news and they were removed.

This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims. It what makes him so valuable. So I’m going to post a link to transcript and video of one of his documentaries, and I’m curious if RF will remove this thread on account of “misinformation”. YouTube found it fitting to do so, and i know you guys don’t want misinformation floating around.

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World - The Corbett Report
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Long story short, the documentary talks about how the Rockefellers are eugenicists who run the show. Better I post where I get my information from than make baseless claims, yes? And mr. Corbett here is nice enough to provide evidence for his claims.


@Estro Felino i think you would find these particular documentaries and news source interesting.

 

[exchemist]

Little experiment I want to try on the topic of misinformation here on RF.

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

A valuable independent media source I follow was on YouTube when I found him in my teens. He kept warning that eventually he and other like sources would be labeled as “misinformation” and removed from mainstream services. I doubted him, and for several years I watched him on YouTube. But then all at once “misinformation” was mainstream news and they were removed.

This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims. It what makes him so valuable. So I’m going to post a link to transcript and video of one of his documentaries, and I’m curious if RF will remove this thread on account of “misinformation”. YouTube found it fitting to do so, and i know you guys don’t want misinformation floating around.

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World - The Corbett Report
Long story short, the documentary talks about how the Rockefellers are eugenicists who run the show. Better I post where I get my information from than make baseless claims, yes? And mr. Corbett here is nice enough to provide evidence for his claims.


@Estro Felino i think you would find these particular documentaries and news source interesting.

This is mad.

 

[Sedim Haba]

Politics should not be on RF. JMHO

 

[an anarchist]

Politics should not be on RF. JMHO

You may be right, but there is a political debate section

 

[We Never Know]

Little experiment I want to try on the topic of misinformation here on RF.

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

A valuable independent media source I follow was on YouTube when I found him in my teens. He kept warning that eventually he and other like sources would be labeled as “misinformation” and removed from mainstream services. I doubted him, and for several years I watched him on YouTube. But then all at once “misinformation” was mainstream news and they were removed.

This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims. It what makes him so valuable. So I’m going to post a link to transcript and video of one of his documentaries, and I’m curious if RF will remove this thread on account of “misinformation”. YouTube found it fitting to do so, and i know you guys don’t want misinformation floating around.

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World - The Corbett Report
Long story short, the documentary talks about how the Rockefellers are eugenicists who run the show. Better I post where I get my information from than make baseless claims, yes? And mr. Corbett here is nice enough to provide evidence for his claims.


@Estro Felino i think you would find these particular documentaries and news source interesting.

"This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims."

Where did he get his sources from that he used to support his claims?

 

[Sedim Haba]

You may be right, but there is a political debate section

...and that's what's wrong, and sows only discord. **** politics.

 

[Estro Felino]

I guess it depends on the fact that all social media have policies whose legal apparatus is molded according to the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, also known as Common Law system. And not on the EU legal system, based upon the rule of law.
And so there is not an objective definition of misinformation, but every judge can label literally anything as misinformation, according to their own sensitivity, experience, perception.


In our European legal system (influenced by Montesquieu, Kant or Beccaria), the judge has a very limited discretional power.
To give an example: I can spread hypothetical things through the press, in my own country, because it falls within the freedom of thought, which is a much wider notion than the freedom of speech.
While freedom of speech usually includes the spreading of already existing information, freedom of thought implies the freedom of speculating about facts, making hypotheses, no matter how improbable they may be.

And so no judge can prevent me from making hypotheses and spreading them through the press or social media.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources.

That alone raises many red flags.
Why do think info not parroted by mainstream media is misinformation?
Such as, there isn't much on how MDMA can treat PTSD. MDMA is a "hard" drug. It even got little attention when the FDA approved it for treating PTSD. MDMA treating PTSD isn't very mainstream knowledge, but it's factually correct.
Or the smoker's paradox. You'll hear less of that, you'll see many negative reactions to even suggesting just nicotine can help (it's the substance that does help), and it's definitely not mainstream. But it is an evidence-based statement of science and medicine to state nicotine can medicinally help people with certain ailments.
Religions that aren't Christianity also fall into this, where mainstream ideas are not reflected in reality. Islam and Satanism especially, where the mainstream ideas od what people think they are does not come close to the reality of what they really are.
And then there's Einstein's greatest blunder.

 

[Estro Felino]

As for the article, it is something I already knew and literally everyone knows it's all true.
Because we have the evidence in Europe.
In Switzerland there are still the cheques that Rockfeller paid to fund the Bolshevik Revolution. The cheques paid to Lenin, and in fact Lenin signed a document that gave Rockfeller the exploitation rights of the Baku oilfields, located in the Soviet Union.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I guess it depends on the fact that all social media have policies whose legal apparatus is molded according to the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence,

You've not read an American User agreement/terms of use, have you?
Nor do you seem to know different states can have different things going on. Like in California where websites have to let us select what cookies we allow (even ones based in other countries).

 

[Estro Felino]

You've not read an American User agreement/terms of use, have you?

Of social media? Many times.
They are not legally binding in my own country, and in fact I can provide you with an example.
Facebook shut down the FB account of CasaPound, a far-right party-movement. You can imagine the reasons.
The Italian judge condemned Facebook Italia to reopen the page and to compensate CasaPound.

Facebook perde ancora contro CasaPound: illegittima la disattivazione della pagina e degli account del movimento — Martini Manna & Partners

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of social media? Many times.
They are not legally binding in my own country, and in fact I can provide you with an example.
Facebook shut down the FB account of CasaPound, a far-right party-movement. You can imagine the reasons.
The Italian judge condemned Facebook Italia to reopen the page and to compensate CasaPound.

Facebook perde ancora contro CasaPound: illegittima la disattivazione della pagina e degli account del movimento — Martini Manna & Partners

See? This is your problem. You see what your country does (or at least what you claim it does) and assume it's that way here. It's not.
In America Warner Brothers and Amazon have removed digital content people paid for from their devices (per the agreement you paid not to own but for the privilege of use and it can be revoked at any time). Sony and John Deere have sued people (for doing things they agreed not to do, and doing it to equipment they purchased but again don't actually own per the agreement). Telsa will revoke premium charging privileges over unauthorized repairs by unauthorized mechanics.
There is a right to repair movement but it's not going well. Laws are passing, but rather than comply companies are still finding ways around it to retain ownership and control over their products (even though by all conventional and normal standards and practices they no longer own these things).

 

[Curious George]

Little experiment I want to try on the topic of misinformation here on RF.

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

A valuable independent media source I follow was on YouTube when I found him in my teens. He kept warning that eventually he and other like sources would be labeled as “misinformation” and removed from mainstream services. I doubted him, and for several years I watched him on YouTube. But then all at once “misinformation” was mainstream news and they were removed.

This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims. It what makes him so valuable. So I’m going to post a link to transcript and video of one of his documentaries, and I’m curious if RF will remove this thread on account of “misinformation”. YouTube found it fitting to do so, and i know you guys don’t want misinformation floating around.

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World - The Corbett Report
Long story short, the documentary talks about how the Rockefellers are eugenicists who run the show. Better I post where I get my information from than make baseless claims, yes? And mr. Corbett here is nice enough to provide evidence for his claims.


@Estro Felino i think you would find these particular documentaries and news source interesting.

I think that misinformation is more than just incorrect information. I think it is intentionally incorrect or negligently conveyed information.

having sources certainly does not preclude something from being misinformation. People can cherry pick sources, they can lie about sources, they can intentionally misrepresent sources, and they can parrot other sources with little to no fact checking.

I think mainstream media sources can be guilty of disseminating misinformation, and I think non-mainstream media can be guilty of disseminating misinformation.

I think that individual or small groups are more likely to lose their platform on social media websites or be punished by search algorithms, because there is little to no other oversight other than that.

 

[Estro Felino]

See? This is your problem. You see what your country does (or at least what you claim it does) and assume it's that way here. It's not.
In America Warner Brothers and Amazon have removed digital content people paid for from their devices (per the agreement you paid not to own but for the privilege of use and it can be revoked at any time). Sony and John Deere have sued people (for doing things they agreed not to do, and doing it to equipment they purchased but again don't actually own per the agreement). Telsa will revoke premium charging privileges over unauthorized repairs by unauthorized mechanics.
There is a right to repair movement but it's not going well. Laws are passing, but rather than comply companies are still finding ways around it to retain ownership and control over their products (even though by all conventional and normal standards and practices they no longer own these things).

It's a privatistic vision of the so called "service providers", what you guys have in the US.
Here we have a publicistic vision of service providers, meaning that if you want to provide users with an internet service, you are forced to guarantee an equal treatment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a privatistic vision of the so called "service providers", what you guys have in the US.
Here we have a publicistic vision of service providers, meaning that if you want to provide users with an internet service, you are forced to guarantee an equal treatment.

We call that net neutrality here. California has it as law.

 

[Nimos]

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

Im not sure that is what I would call misinformation (haven't seen the documentary), but in general, at least to me, a requirement for misinformation is the intent to deceive or to change the truth on purpose.

I used to watch a lot of documentaries on Top Documentary Films - Watch Free Documentaries Online

Where they have a lot of normal documentaries, but they also have a lot of conspiracy ones and stuff with UFOs etc. But should all these types of documentaries be classified as misinformation?

I think certain parts of a documentary might be regarded as misinformation, while other parts might simply be speculations, so it highly depends on how this information is presented.

Flat-earthers is a good example of people creating misinformation because it is people that claim something without the ability to understand or care about the proof that the Earth is not flat. And often there is a religious agenda for why they claim what they do.

 

[Erebus]

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

Misinformation is by definition incorrect information. That doesn't mean it's a deliberate attempt to deceive (that would be disinformation) and it's perfectly possible for an honest mistake to spread rapidly. News sources can certainly spread misinformation or disinformation no matter how big they are.

A valuable independent media source I follow was on YouTube when I found him in my teens. He kept warning that eventually he and other like sources would be labeled as “misinformation” and removed from mainstream services. I doubted him, and for several years I watched him on YouTube. But then all at once “misinformation” was mainstream news and they were removed.

That's a fairly common tactic used in spreading conspiracy theories. Make more reliable news sources a part of the conspiracy and you can make your own theories untouchable. If you get removed from Youtube or social media, it confirms what you've been saying all along.

This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims. It what makes him so valuable. So I’m going to post a link to transcript and video of one of his documentaries, and I’m curious if RF will remove this thread on account of “misinformation”. YouTube found it fitting to do so, and i know you guys don’t want misinformation floating around.

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

It's always good to back up your claims with sources. However, that doesn't mean the sources you use aren't spreading incorrect information themselves.

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World - The Corbett Report
Long story short, the documentary talks about how the Rockefellers are eugenicists who run the show. Better I post where I get my information from than make baseless claims, yes? And mr. Corbett here is nice enough to provide evidence for his claims.

I try to run news sources by Media Bias / Fact Check. It labels The Corbett Report as a conspiracy website:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-corbett-report/

Media Bias / Fact Check is by no means perfect, particularly in its assessment of left/right bias. I've found that it's overwhelmingly Americacentric which skews its evaluation of non-American news sources.

It's generally pretty good for determining how reliable a source is though.

 

[Erebus]

Where they have a lot of normal documentaries, but they also have a lot of conspiracy ones and stuff with UFOs etc. But should all these types of documentaries be classified as misinformation?

I think certain parts of a documentary might be regarded as misinformation, while other parts might simply be speculations, so it highly depends on how this information is presented.

Good question. That's something worth pondering.

Any documentary covering conspiracy theories is walking a fine line between presenting facts and presenting incorrect information. It's hard to make a definitive assessment here but I would say it comes down to whether they're presenting the conspiracy theory as something people believe or if they're presenting it as a valid alternative.

Saying, "This is what some people believe and these are the reasons why" is fair enough. Adding, "And maybe they're right" strays into misinformation.

 

[Stevicus]

Little experiment I want to try on the topic of misinformation here on RF.

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

A valuable independent media source I follow was on YouTube when I found him in my teens. He kept warning that eventually he and other like sources would be labeled as “misinformation” and removed from mainstream services. I doubted him, and for several years I watched him on YouTube. But then all at once “misinformation” was mainstream news and they were removed.

This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims. It what makes him so valuable. So I’m going to post a link to transcript and video of one of his documentaries, and I’m curious if RF will remove this thread on account of “misinformation”. YouTube found it fitting to do so, and i know you guys don’t want misinformation floating around.

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World - The Corbett Report
Long story short, the documentary talks about how the Rockefellers are eugenicists who run the show. Better I post where I get my information from than make baseless claims, yes? And mr. Corbett here is nice enough to provide evidence for his claims.


@Estro Felino i think you would find these particular documentaries and news source interesting.

I'm not sure about this article or whether the Rockefellers are eugenicists. It seems like a long-winded way of saying that capitalists like to make money and there's no line they won't cross to get it. But it's not the industries or the products to blame. It's the philosophy.

 

[F1fan]

Politics should not be on RF. JMHO

In the USA republican politics is tied to evangelical Christianity. So it can't be avoided.