bans for false information

MrMicra

Is it time to bring in a standard ban for posting false facts? It doesn't have to be long just public and clear.

omahaid

What's your standard for "fact"?

Oryx

How would that work when someone confuses opinion with fact? (you see that a lot around here). Or if someone genuinely believes the 'fact' is true? Or urban myths? Or currency fluctuations cause a true fact today to be false tomorrow?

The religious and scientific forums would have a problem with this too, methinks.

You see the problems.

seamus

Surely "false fact" is an oxymoron? What are our standards for proof in relation to facts? What if a "fact" is both provable and disprovable at the same time - i.e. it's an extrapolation based on evidence which isn't entirely deterministic?

People posting false information come under the scrutiny of the community and get annihilated by the community. People who continually post the same disproven or unsubstantiated claims will eventually be warned and banned.

When someone makes an assertion, they don't have to be rigourously correct, they just have to show that there's some reasonable grounding for that assertion (forum and debate dependent of course).

ejmaztec

I remember seeing one the OP's "facts" recently, on the Rip-off Ireland forum, so I can see the irony in this thread.:pac:

tbh

the conspiracy theories forum would be a wasteland...

GLaDOS

Oryx wrote: »

The religious and scientific forums would have a problem with this too, methinks.

Why would science have a problem?

FlutterinBantam

MrMicra wrote: »

Is it time to bring in a standard ban for posting false facts? It doesn't have to be long just public and clear.

You'd have to bin your siggie;)

Oryx

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Why would science have a problem?

Every factual post would require links to appropriate double blind placebo controlled studies.

GLaDOS

Oryx wrote: »

Every factual post would require links to appropriate double blind placebo controlled studies.

Have to learn to reference at some point

mike65

tbh wrote: »

the conspiracy theories forum would be a wasteland...

As would the soccer forum

+1 for the proposal.

AckwelFoley

Ponders how this would be possible to implement in the science forum...

Facts require proof and proof is for alcohol

johnnyskeleton

tbh wrote: »

the conspiracy theories forum would be a wasteland...

OR, it would be the only forum still working.

Scofflaw

I presume the OP is referring to cases like vaccination, where people regularly claim that vaccinations causing autism is an established fact, which is not in any sense the case.

My own view is that it's not something that can really become a hard and fast rule (even I am not omniscient, after all). If someone posts something like the above, I ask them to show their sources or drop the claim. If they're forced to drop the claim either because they have no source for it, or because they cannot otherwise substantiate/defend the claim in discussion with other posters, then I'm prepared to make a repetition of that claim an infractable or banning offence.

A good example of that is the claim in the recent referendum that Spain voting Yes to the EU Constitution in 2005 resulted in a rise in Spanish unemployment a few years later. The poster making the claim was forced in discussion to admit that there couldn't actually be any causal connection - indeed, stated that they had never intended to claim a causal connection - and a day or so later simply repeated the claim that there was.

Obviously the method is unreliable, but I'm not sure there's a better method - everyone is allowed to make a false claim once, but if they can't hold it up in discussion, then it becomes an issue of mendacity if they repeat it subsequently. The advantage of the method is that it's available to any poster to follow the same path - challenge the false claim, and if it doesn't stand up, then bring any repetition of it to the mod's attention.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

cordially,
Scofflaw

Come on, it's feedback, let's say:

A little irate,
Scofflaw

seamus

Scofflaw wrote: »

even I am not omniscient, after all

:eek:
My illusions are shattered

ConsiderThis

Some folks hold fact dear to their hearts which may not, actually be true. Perhaps message boards, such as boards.ie, is a good place to explore and learn.

I come across many in life who believe things quite strongly and, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, are loath to agree their long held belief is not accurate.

And then you have subjects (for example climate change) where some of the the "facts" are based on predictions which are themselves based on computer models which are not infallible. It's best guess, but some think best guess is, in itself, fact.

Some think the holocaust is not fact, and while the evidence for their beliefs may appear that they are misguided, I'd be loath to ban them from expressing their views. The same can be said for subjects from christianity to homoeopathy to the best sorts of flower arranging techniques.

While 1+1 always equals 2, its hard to imagine that much beyond that is fact that can't be open to different interpretations.

Hard to define what constitutes a fact, I'd say, and boards is a richer and better place for discussing views, and would be a poorer place if different views as to "facts" were not allowed.

kaizersoze

Anybody who takes what's posted on an internet forum as 'fact' is more deserving of a ban than the poster.

MrMicra

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Some think the holocaust is not fact, and while the evidence for their beliefs may appear that they are misguided, I'd be loath to ban them from expressing their views.

But what happens when 'debate' on boards about the holocaust is based on a set of falsified reports commissioned by an avowed Nazi?
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61921823&postcount=17
There is a link to Ernst Zuendel's website.
http://www.zundelsite.org/faurisson/articles/the_gas_chambers_of_auschwitz_appear_to_be_physically_inconceivable.html

A community develops on boards.ie that is worried about 'the Jews' not Jews, not Russian Jews, not 'the NKVD in the 1930s was Jewish dominated and...' but rather that monolithic entity 'the Jews'.

marcsignal wrote: »

Historians now generally accept that the Jews had a considerable hand in the rounding up and killing of Ukrainians by the Russians before the war...

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61193126&postcount=15

ConsiderThis

MrMicra wrote: »

But what happens when 'debate' on boards about the holocaust is based on a set of falsified reports commissioned by an avowed Nazi?
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61921823&postcount=17
There is a link to Ernst Zuendel's website.
http://www.zundelsite.org/faurisson/articles/the_gas_chambers_of_auschwitz_appear_to_be_physically_inconceivable.html

Thanks for your interesting reply. I have no idea who Ernst Zuendel is or a link to a thread on boards about the holocaust is relevant to a discussion about whether or not bans should be issued for false information.

leninbenjamin

I think people that consistently make statements of fact without providing any rationale or references for their beliefs should be warned and ultimately banned if they change their habits, at least in politics and the science categories.

ConsiderThis

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I think people that consistently make statements of fact without providing any rationale or references for their beliefs should be warned and ultimately banned if they change their habits, at least in politics and the science categories.

What facts are there in politics? Do you mean if someone does not agree with your assesement that they should be banned?

very little in this life is fact, and we shuld remember that it was once accepted as a general scientific fact, and accepted by the people at large, that the world was flat.

Now, you may scorn at that, but homeoepaths take it as fact that their medicines work, I don't agree. Which of us is telling the fact, and which is not telling the fact?

faceman

Given that most posters use random internet links as back up to their facts, most of the userbase would be banned....

leninbenjamin

ConsiderThis wrote: »

What facts are there in politics?

are you for real? The whole bloody thing is a game of numbers. Tax take, revenue, GDP, employment numbers, pay rates, welfare, hospital beds and so forth.

Turd Ferguson

MrMicra wrote: »

Is it time to bring in a standard ban for posting false facts? It doesn't have to be long just public and clear.

Yes okay, it now standard to ban for posting false facts

Terry

MrMicra wrote: »

But what happens when 'debate' on boards about the holocaust is based on a set of falsified reports commissioned by an avowed Nazi?
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61921823&postcount=17
There is a link to Ernst Zuendel's website.
http://www.zundelsite.org/faurisson/articles/the_gas_chambers_of_auschwitz_appear_to_be_physically_inconceivable.html

A community develops on boards.ie that is worried about 'the Jews' not Jews, not Russian Jews, not 'the NKVD in the 1930s was Jewish dominated and...' but rather that monolithic entity 'the Jews'.


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61193126&postcount=15

As far as I know, most people of Jewish descent are entitled to Israeli citizenship.

Would you feel better if those being accused of wrongdoing were called "formerly displaced Israelites"? Just "Israelis" in reference to current conspiracy theories.

Do you think it is unfair for people to question Jewish involvement in atrocities committed both before and after WW2 due to the holocaust?

5starpool

74.2% of people would not be happy with this rule change.

mike65

ConsiderThis wrote: »

What facts are there in politics? Do you mean if someone does not agree with your assesement that they should be banned?

You appear to be confusing fact with opinion.

phasers

I think this would be great, if I hear someone state the "fact" that RTE were offered Father Ted and turned it down I'm going to hurl.

marcsignal

MrMicra wrote: »

But what happens when 'debate' on boards about the holocaust is based on a set of falsified reports commissioned by an avowed Nazi?
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61921823&postcount=17
There is a link to Ernst Zuendel's website.
http://www.zundelsite.org/faurisson/articles/the_gas_chambers_of_auschwitz_appear_to_be_physically_inconceivable.html

A community develops on boards.ie that is worried about 'the Jews' not Jews, not Russian Jews, not 'the NKVD in the 1930s was Jewish dominated and...' but rather that monolithic entity 'the Jews'.


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61193126&postcount=15

Originally Posted by marcsignal
Historians now generally accept that the Jews had a considerable hand in the rounding up and killing of Ukrainians by the Russians before the war...

FYI MrMicra, I can back up the above quote with facts from a respected acedemic. I have been studying the period, and the Holocaust in particular for 25 years, and I'm not in the habit of posting such information without being able to back it up.

Incidentally, it's very sporting of you to use my quote, to badmouth me here and not give me the opportunity to challenge you.

Just let me know if you would like to quit now ? or if you want to embarrass yourself any further, ok ?
unless you're too busy looking for Nazis Under the Stairs or trying to set up some kind of warped form of 'Cyber Holocaust Denial Rules' for boards.

Sweet Jesus :rolleyes::rolleyes:

.

Mahatma coat

its quite Straighforward MrMicra

if you see someone posting something which you BELIEVE to be a False Fact

you are entitled to call that person on it.

however when that person returns to you with documentary evidence from a series of sources then Like it or not tis quite possibly factual.

you can then ( and there is a very interestin discussion in the CT Forum about this) attempt to discredit that persons sources. this has always struck me as a very weak way of arguing a point, so if you do decide to take this route dont be surprised if people start to ignore you.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

however when that person returns to you with documentary evidence from a series of sources then Like it or not tis quite possibly factual.

Possibly factual...with emphasies on the possibly part.

When you have a number of source who say "A is true", and you have a number of source who say "A is false", then its possible for either one to be correct....but rare that both are.

Ultimately, though, it would be pointless to try and ban false facts, because even if we could define what it was, there are any number of ways around it.

If I were to say that MyCrazySource claims that the world is flat...that's not a false fact...if that is indeed what MyCrazySource claims. As long as I don't say that the world is flat, I'm not saying anything false. The fact is that MyCrazySource believes the world to be flat.

I could alternately use this fact to generate a series of questions....MyCrazySource says that the world is flat. Is there any possibility that this is so? Can we really prove that it isn't? Again, I'm not giving any false information. I'm correctly stating what MyCrazySource is saying, and I'm then proceeding from a position that I want to see if we can definitively show that position to be wrong.

Its all sleight of hand, of course. In all cases, my aim would be to put forward the suggestion that the world is flat....but I'm never actually making that claim.

Now...this is (obviously) a simple example, even though there are allegedly still flat-earthers still out there. Imagine, though, that we're not talking about something so cut-and-dried....something where its not so clear what the facts are. In such cases, its trivial to muddy the waters with false information, without ever actually claiming it as fact.

All that aside...if MyCrazySource then signs up to boards.ie....should he/she be banned for saying "I believe the world is flat"? What if htey say "The world is flat...and here's why..." ? At what point do we decide that something is a deliberate attempt to mislead and not a genuinely held but incorrect belief?

If we don't make that distinction, then the proposal is to ban people for believing something that's wrong....and not just for deliberately trying to mislead others.

Morlar

This would turn into a minefield of conflicting sources and reports. To given an example throughout the last lebanon/israel war there were advocacy groups who signed up here (http://giyus.org/) and began posting as if they were just another regular poster.

In a situation where amnesty and the UN & other Human rights organisations routinely create reports which are highly critical of israeli military behaviour and where the Israel Defence Forces almost always routinely create reports to counter the allegations and find themselves innocent - who is to say which is 'fact' and which is not. Both sides can quote sources and reports and 'facts' at will & both sides discredit the other vehemently.

A rule like this would allow advocacy groups a loophole to exploit in order to stifle any discussion about grey areas which they would prefer were not mentioned.

tallaght01

There should be some kind of demand for a VERY high burden of proof in the conspiracy theories forum. The anti-vaccine stuff is getting out of hand in there, and it's not fair on the parents who might stumble across it, or the likes of me who really feel an obligation to spend a lot of time countering the information.

I think the political conspiracy stuff is fine. But the health stuff really does sow seeds of doubt in people's minds.

My name is URL

tallaght01 wrote: »

There should be some kind of demand for a VERY high burden of proof in the conspiracy theories forum. The anti-vaccine stuff is getting out of hand in there, and it's not fair on the parents who might stumble across it, or the likes of me who really feel an obligation to spend a lot of time countering the information.

I think the political conspiracy stuff is fine. But the health stuff really does sow seeds of doubt in people's minds.

The stuff about the vaccine in that forum is posted on many other conspiracy sites

Why should discussion be disallowed? I mean if anyone chooses to believe the stuff posted on a Conspiracy Theory forum and neglects to rely more on actual professional opinion, that's their loss

tallaght01

My name is URL wrote: »

The stuff about the vaccine in that forum is posted on many other conspiracy sites

Why should discussion be disallowed? I mean if anyone chooses to believe the stuff posted on a Conspiracy Theory forum and neglects to rely more on actual professional opinion, that's their loss

Well, if a child's parent is gullible enough to believe the stuff posted on that forum, the kid is being punished, and it's their health that will suffer.

My name is URL

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, if a child's parent is gullible enough to believe the stuff posted on that forum, the kid is being punished, and it's their health that will suffer.

Fair enough, but I doubt that many would place faith in the stuff being posted there

and what better way to fuel a conspiracy theory than to disallow any reference to it? =p

tallaght01

My name is URL wrote: »

Fair enough, but I doubt that many would place faith in the stuff being posted there

and what better way to fuel a conspiracy theory than to disallow any reference to it? =p

I agree. But there should be a strict burden of proof. There's a guy there at the minute and he's posted a graph, claiming to show whooping cough vaccine is useless because it hasn't affected infant mortality. The graph doesn't even show infant mortality from whooping cough.

That kind of thing causes problems. It's ok for me, as I don't take graphs at face value, but some ppl do.

My name is URL

tallaght01 wrote: »

I agree. But there should be a strict burden of proof. There's a guy there at the minute and he's posted a graph, claiming to show whooping cough vaccine is useless because it hasn't affected infant mortality. The graph doesn't even show infant mortality from whooping cough.

That kind of thing causes problems. It's ok for me, as I don't take graphs at face value, but some ppl do.

Ah I see what you mean, I just read a few of his posts now. I definitely agree with you about citing sources when posting graphs or studies etc while claiming them to be true.