An essential read from the former
research manager of Stanford’s Internet Observatory, on how spreaders of misinformation (people who have been deceived) and disinformation (people who know they’re lying) view even *labelling* a post as misinformation as censorship.
More … 🧵
Trolling + misinformation requires an audience: so when rather than responding, I simply block, they also perceive that as censorship.
This latest accusation, for example, claims that, as a university professor, I am a public official and hence shouldn’t be allowed to block anyone on social media.
As @jonathanstea.bsky.social points out here, a strong predictor of trolling is the tendency to derive pleasure or enjoyment from being cruel or demeaning to others. By blocking, it deprives them of that pleasure.
From the comments I receive (see below for just a small sample from last week), you can see how this could plausibly be the case - many of whom are then shocked and indignant to be blocked.
This is not just one person’s or one research center’s problem.
The World Economic Forum lists Misinfo as their #1 risk to global stability over the next 2 years … and climate-fueled weather extremes (a common misinfo target) as #2.
This puts us ALL at risk. /🧵
www.weforum.org/publications...
This kind of argument about schools is a classic sign of authoritarianism.
It’s the opposite of how officials who value individual rights and free society should speak about education.
It’s the logical outcome of the Garcetti doctrine. Whether academic freedom will best this argument remains to be determined by the courts. All I know is on 1984 Orwell gave the example of the integrator forcing Winston Smith to say 2+2=5 as ultimate authoritarianism. We may get there soon.