The four that I mentioned are obviously not the same but the association is that they are critics of government, its secrets and lies to the public (sometimes accurate). Just as I think it is foolish to accept an accusation of disinformation because of who said it, it is also foolish to dismiss it on those grounds.
The four that I mentioned are obviously not the same but the association is that they are critics of government, its secrets and lies to the public (sometimes accurate). Just as I think it is foolish to accept an accusation of disinformation because of who said it, it is also foolish to dismiss it on those grounds.
I'm certain that you know that I'm certain that you consider things carefully and take a nuanced view of things. As I wrote, I am not an anarchist but without regard to political tilt, I also see government as an entity that often puts out disinformation and does not always act in the public interest. Humans are quite good at rationalizing bullshit when it suits their purpose while believing that that is not what they are doing.
I am more biased toward the idea of incompetence or denied bias than grand conspiracy, but conspiracies do exist, it's even a crime when combined with conspiracy to commit a crime.
Political parties (plural) are not above dirty tricks and lies from government are sometimes associated with partisan politics. And sometimes disinformation is to protect legitimate classified secrets. On two occasions when I asked the right people about documents that seemed technically incorrect I heard the words, "You found it. It's like that because..." I had no trouble supporting the disinformation when I knew why it existed, but it was non political.
In other comments I pointed out that Whitehouse claims of disinformation might also be disinformation. Does that mean it is to hide political conspiracy or an attempt to deny human incompetence to maintain faith and confidence? I make no claims because I don't have evidence I'd take to peer review.
I'm not just assuming the role of curmudgeon, I just think that far to often accusation of disinformation is disinformation. That relates to the article and the difficulty of determining what is true. Deception leads to loss of confidence in people honestly seeking truth and to high confidence in people who want to believe something they agree with is correct.
As for the importance of deciders, history books are written by the victors and they decide what is in them. As with many things, lies of omission are common. They are as much a lie as blatant falsehood, perhaps worse because they are less obvious.
The four that I mentioned are obviously not the same but the association is that they are critics of government, its secrets and lies to the public (sometimes accurate). Just as I think it is foolish to accept an accusation of disinformation because of who said it, it is also foolish to dismiss it on those grounds.
I'm certain that you know that I'm certain that you consider things carefully and take a nuanced view of things. As I wrote, I am not an anarchist but without regard to political tilt, I also see government as an entity that often puts out disinformation and does not always act in the public interest. Humans are quite good at rationalizing bullshit when it suits their purpose while believing that that is not what they are doing.
I am more biased toward the idea of incompetence or denied bias than grand conspiracy, but conspiracies do exist, it's even a crime when combined with conspiracy to commit a crime.
Political parties (plural) are not above dirty tricks and lies from government are sometimes associated with partisan politics. And sometimes disinformation is to protect legitimate classified secrets. On two occasions when I asked the right people about documents that seemed technically incorrect I heard the words, "You found it. It's like that because..." I had no trouble supporting the disinformation when I knew why it existed, but it was non political.
In other comments I pointed out that Whitehouse claims of disinformation might also be disinformation. Does that mean it is to hide political conspiracy or an attempt to deny human incompetence to maintain faith and confidence? I make no claims because I don't have evidence I'd take to peer review.
I'm not just assuming the role of curmudgeon, I just think that far to often accusation of disinformation is disinformation. That relates to the article and the difficulty of determining what is true. Deception leads to loss of confidence in people honestly seeking truth and to high confidence in people who want to believe something they agree with is correct.
As for the importance of deciders, history books are written by the victors and they decide what is in them. As with many things, lies of omission are common. They are as much a lie as blatant falsehood, perhaps worse because they are less obvious.