Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-20-2022, 09:52 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 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.  

I am concerned with "misinformation originating from singular sources" because among those singular sources appear to be hostile governments and people deliberately misinforming voters--successfully--for electoral advantage. To get that advantage they need to undermine other sources of authority foundational to maintaining a modern liberal democracy, among them science and the free press. "It's all opinion and opinions are all equal--who is empowered to say otherwise?"

And if you read my post #205, then you remember I just told you that I think there is no way there can ever be a government that doesn't "misinform" to some degree. So the question I put to you is whether there should be ANY power of government at all, given the impossibility of government officials who never misinform. I think impossible to create a police dept. impervious to corruption and class/race bias. But I don't therefore conclude that police should have no more power to enforce laws than anyone else, or that there should be no police. Just let the community handle it (here's your AR, Biz; let's clean up this neighborhood). Despite the occasional Ferguson, I'm generally more concerned with crime flowing upward from "single sources." 

That's why I asked you the 4 questions below. I cannot really tell how far your problem goes with the government's ability to "force" listening.

Should there be ANY position which as a greater impact than someone else's when it comes to pandemic response? Should there be any position or power AT ALL to winnow good information from bad, to centralize data collection, to determine vectors of transmission, etc.? Is it better to just let doctors talk on tv and then follow the competing advice we like best? If so, who selects those doctors--the media market? I cannot say much more until I know WHERE you think government authority/power can be or is legitimately deployed to stop a pandemic, or WHETHER you think it can be legitimately deployed at all.

(05-19-2022, 07:53 PM)Dill Wrote: If there were another pandemic on the COVID scale, but worse, with Ebola-type effects and death rate, in your view--

1. Should ANYONE AT ALL inform the public about it? E.g., if doctors and researchers dealing with it have information which, if generally known, might prevent its spread and save lives, how should that information be assessed and handled? Or should it be at all, given at least some "misinformation" will be generated in the process? Should we let whatever will happen happen, rather than risk government misinformation by empowering public officials to oversee and direct a response? 

2. If researchers discover the new plague came from Iceland, communicated by passengers from Iceland Air, should anyone be empowered to stop air traffic from Iceland? Infringe on passenger privacy by testing/quarantining them? Suppose it first appears in Florida, should officials in that state warn others? And warn them with what? Who is vetting the information? Should we leave it to individual doctors in Florida calling their friends in other states, or even just other hospitals in state, and hope for the best? 

3. What if there is a medical consensus that some activity many enjoy, like eating beef or fishing, has to be constrained to stop the spread and save lives? People who don't eat beef or fish are unaffected, but those who like these activities would have to sacrifice for the greater good, should they heed the medical advice; and their heeding would affect the bottom line of those who produce beef and sell fishing gear.  In such cases, absent some central coercive power, the general good would be dependent upon the individual choices of beef eaters and fishermen. Maybe most would willingly sacrifice--though surely not if they have no trustworthy information about the disease, just rumors from people returning from Florida vacations. 

4. Is there any point in the above where you think government should or could effectively "kick in" to insure that info about the disease is vetted and made public, and that its progress is tracked nation wide as well as globally to update citizens. Finally, is there any point at all where coercive power to ban activities and quarantine people should kick in?  I.e., could the danger of spread ever justify the risk of powerful government officials tweeting misinformation? Or do you envision some kind of non-governmental entity accomplishing the above? E.g., corporations or ad hoc citizens groups, or professional organizations like the AMA? 

This is not a "quiz" with right or wrong answers I can ambush you with. Rather, I just want to know where you stand, what you think government does, could or shouldn't do. Right now I have no idea whether you think it should have any power at all to define and manage threats.