Why does this make me smile so hard?

^ Don't agree. You just posted a link without making a point, so everybody else tries to make a point...

suitkees wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: [QUOTE=suitkees][QUOTE=CosmicVibration]The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! This is exactly what I was not asking for: (statistical) research is not about just giving a couple of examples, as you did here. Three - disputable - examples (and I don't doubt you have a couple of others) out of the probably hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences is a rather weak sample to base a hypothesis on, but it seems to suffice to you. Remember that Trump alone made more than 30.000 false or misleading statements during his four year reign (and this is fact-checked). Giving examples is not the same as giving research results. This makes your conclusion rather void.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - June 20 2023 at 11:56

^^ Oh Cindy, please, try to do some comprehensive reading. I was hesitating to add that word "disputed" into my phrase, because I was afraid it could function as a red flag on a bull, and unfortunately it did... I'm sorry I distracted you with that, but I wasn't talking about facts, and I definitely don't want to drag this discussion, again, into a new covid/masks or alike one, especially because you are completely beside my point about disinformation and the claims cosmicvibration was making about that.

CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse!

Research, research, research, statistics, more research... You took out my point regarding his second claim by bringing forward some anecdotal claims that add nothing to the discussion at hand about the claim that "a great deal of "disinformation" was proven not to be true". I have doubts about this claim, but I haven't done the research necessary to either prove or disprove this claim. Neither have you, I think, and bringing forward a couple of examples of the ocean of hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences, doesn't add anything to the original claim that "a great deal of "disinformation was proven not to be true".

suitkees wrote: ^^ Oh Cindy, please, try to do some comprehensive reading. I was hesitating to add that word "disputed" into my phrase, because I was afraid it could function as a red flag on a bull, and unfortunately it did... I'm sorry I distracted you with that, but I wasn't talking about facts, and I definitely don't want to drag this discussion, again, into a new covid/masks or alike one, especially because you are completely beside my point about disinformation and the claims cosmicvibration was making about that. CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! Research, research, research, statistics, more research... You took out my point regarding his second claim by bringing forward some anecdotal claims that add nothing to the discussion at hand about the claim that "a great deal of "disinformation" was proven not to be true". I have doubts about this claim, but I haven't done the research necessary to either prove or disprove this claim. Neither have you, I think, and bringing forward a couple of examples of the ocean of hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences, doesn't add anything to the original claim that "a great deal of "disinformation was proven not to be true". I'm very curious to know if there is any substantial research on the disinformation claims (those hundreds of thousands) and veracity of them and again you come with just a couple of examples and claims - and yes, I consider them very disputable, but that is besides the point I was making and not the subject here. Giving examples is not scientific research. Statistics are not based on just a couple of examples, but on - more or less thorough and thus more or less disputable - research methods. As long as statements as those I reacted to are not referenced by some - preferably thorough - research, then they have no validity whatsoever and are just nourishing the disinformation we are suffering from.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - June 20 2023 at 13:09

omphaloskepsis wrote: suitkees wrote: ^^ Oh Cindy, please, try to do some comprehensive reading. I was hesitating to add that word "disputed" into my phrase, because I was afraid it could function as a red flag on a bull, and unfortunately it did... I'm sorry I distracted you with that, but I wasn't talking about facts, and I definitely don't want to drag this discussion, again, into a new covid/masks or alike one, especially because you are completely beside my point about disinformation and the claims cosmicvibration was making about that. CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! Research, research, research, statistics, more research... You took out my point regarding his second claim by bringing forward some anecdotal claims that add nothing to the discussion at hand about the claim that "a great deal of "disinformation" was proven not to be true". I have doubts about this claim, but I haven't done the research necessary to either prove or disprove this claim. Neither have you, I think, and bringing forward a couple of examples of the ocean of hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences, doesn't add anything to the original claim that "a great deal of "disinformation was proven not to be true". I'm very curious to know if there is any substantial research on the disinformation claims (those hundreds of thousands) and veracity of them and again you come with just a couple of examples and claims - and yes, I consider them very disputable, but that is besides the point I was making and not the subject here. Giving examples is not scientific research. Statistics are not based on just a couple of examples, but on - more or less thorough and thus more or less disputable - research methods. As long as statements as those I reacted to are not referenced by some - preferably thorough - research, then they have no validity whatsoever and are just nourishing the disinformation we are suffering from. The only Disinformation I'm talking about is the kind that is CENSORED.     I've been doing stats problems since 1993.  I've took and made two A's in University level stats courses, plus the stats we applied in Biology. I'm an RN with a biology degree. I've take/taken care of Covid patients. In the mid/late 90's, I worked for four years in an Epidemiology lab.   When Biden says, "If you take Vax, you will NOT get Covid." ... You don't need stats or research to prove that's what Biden said.  A video will do nicely.  When Government claims that Hunter Laptop was a Russia disinformation operation...You don't need stats to prove that.   Multiple media articles proving that claim will do.  When Government and Hunter Biden admit that the Laptop is real....You don't need stats to prove that. Their quotes admitting such a thing will do.   Do you know how to do statistics?  Could you explain how to do a T-test?  I'll give you a hint... A T-test is a statistical test used to compare the means of two groups. Since you keep mentioning "statistics" ...you can tell me how to run a T-test?  The only Disinformation I'm talking about is the kind that is CENSORED.  Get it? Got it? Good.  I don't care about lies/disinformation that is not censored. Disinformation and lies are protected under the first amendment. That's my point.   The first amendment protects people -that the government hates-  right to say things the government hates.  Does the first amendment work today?  No.  The government censors anyone they want.  That's reality.

^Classic Danny Kay response.   Man, you're old !

I think there's some confusion here with censorship and being debunked. It seems anyone these days that gets debunked, cries censorship. Grow up. On top of that, context seems to almost always be lacking. There really is no sense in arguing with trolls.