05-20-2022, 09:52 AM
(05-19-2022, 07:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Prasad was identifying misinformation when he critiqued Califf's tweet. He had to have at least an implicit definition to do that. And I don't dispute that he identified misinformation. So he can do it, but not government?
Whoa! I think you may have just accidentally tripped over the entire point.
Sure both can do it. That's not the issue. But it's what is done with the misinformation after your identification of it, that IS the issue.
What can Prasad do with it?
Write some articles and make a few videos that people can CHOOSE to listen to or not listen to.
What can THE GOVERNMENT do with it?
Make policy that people will be FORCED to listen to.
What makes Califf's opinion on this matter any more legitimate or important than Prasad's? Check Prasad's CV and credentials. They're impressive. They're both equally qualified, but because Califf has been appointed to a government position, his opinion has a potentially greater impact than Prasad's.
I find it interesting that you're more concerned with the impact of misinformation originating from singular sources and spreading upward through social media over the impact of misinformation originating from the highest forms of government and being FORCED downward through policy.
