Preventing false information

[Chriliman]

If you had the ability to prevent false information that could cause unnecessary harm from coming out, should you?

Why or why not?

 

[Sketcher]

If you had the ability to prevent false information that could cause unnecessary harm from coming out, should you?

Why or why not?

I do that all the time when talking with customers. I help manage a product that very few of them understand. I have to set the record straight when working with them to plan and implement solutions more times than I care to count. If I didn't do that, they would be in very bad places.

 

[R.J. Aldridge]

If you had the ability to prevent false information that could cause unnecessary harm from coming out, should you?

Why or why not?

I would say that we all have a duty to promote what is true over what is false to the best of our ability. However, due to the fact that we have limited, imperfect knowledge, leading to differences between truth claims for different groups or individuals, we ought to approach truth with a degree of humility, recognizing that people who disagree can learn from each other, and the information that can stand up against attack from apparent false information is more robust as a truth claim.

Of course, there are always other questions to consider. Known false information that will bring harm can and only should be countered with the truth in a way that reveals the false information to be false. There are also other questions such as, should we allow apparent false information to be promoted for the sake of reducing harm?

 

[Hazelelponi]

If you had the ability to prevent false information that could cause unnecessary harm from coming out, should you?

Why or why not?

We have a duty as Christians to uphold the truth and share it with others. We also have a duty to refute falsehoods concerning our faith.

That said, your question specifically asks if we have the moral/ethical obligation to specifically prevent falsehoods, and to that I say no. More than no, absolutely not.

God has allowed a world where people have freedom of their own minds, and while of their own freewill they will choose evil over good every time, there's nothing in our Christian mandate that says we are to remove anyone's freedom of thought and speech.

God has ordained governments so that the innocent of society are protected from evil people like murderers and rapists, thieves and the like - but Christians nor any man is allowed to interfere with men's freedom of thinking or saying whatever they will....

 

[Ken-1122]

If you had the ability to prevent false information that could cause unnecessary harm from coming out, should you?

Why or why not?

I say yes because I would want that done for me.

 

[Chriliman]

We have a duty as Christians to uphold the truth and share it with others. We also have a duty to refute falsehoods concerning our faith.

That said, your question specifically asks if we have the moral/ethical obligation to specifically prevent falsehoods, and to that I say no. More than no, absolutely not.

God has allowed a world where people have freedom of their own minds, and while of their own freewill they will choose evil over good every time, there's nothing in our Christian mandate that says we are to remove anyone's freedom of thought and speech.

God has ordained governments so that the innocent of society are protected from evil people like murderers and rapists, thieves and the like - but Christians nor any man is allowed to interfere with men's freedom of thinking or saying whatever they will....

So your stance is more of combat falsehood with the truth, rather than censor or hide falsehood? I think that makes sense.

 

[Robban]

If you had the ability to prevent false information that could cause unnecessary harm from coming out, should you?

Why or why not?

We all have that ability,
our lips.

 

[Robban]

Gossip spreads like wild fire.

Starts as a feather ends up as a hen.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course.

I can't really see a situation where allowing false information to harm people makes sense.

 

[jayem]

I assume the OP is referring to information that is intentionally propagated when it’s known to be false and potentially harmful. Morally, of course it should be prevented. But legally, that would seem to be prior restraint. Which—given the 1st Amendment—is very limited.

What might be possible is to hold those who spread falsehoods financially responsible. Even if little or no harm is done, bad actors could be made to pay for their lies. Hitting them in the pocketbook is where it really hurts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you had the ability to prevent false information that could cause unnecessary harm from coming out, should you?

Why or why not?

Generally yes, but in wise retrospection, I think it also depends on who and where the wolves are ...

 

[Chrystal-J]

Who gets to decide what's 'true' or 'false'?

 

[Robban]

Who gets to decide what's 'true' or 'false'?

Considering the falseness of this world it is not so easy.

From "Today in Jewish history"

R Chaim was one of the leadig sages of Egypt,
late 16th early 17 cent.

R Chaim once became blind,

and the townsfolk spread

rumors attributing his condition to bribery,

per the verse, Deuteronomy 16:19.

On hearing this R Chaim got up before the entire congregation and announced;

"If it is true that I have accepted bribery,
may my eyes retain their sightlessness,

But if it is not true,
may my vision be restored."

Miraculously, his vision was restored immediately,

and he proceeded to identify the congregants
by name.

 

[Tom1961]

I agree that blocking or censuring such information would not be the best course of action. But, I would see nothing wrong with adding a disclaimer if I believe that it is false. Especially if I have truthful information, that will prevent harm, I should add such.

By simply blocking the false information, the reader does not have awareness of all available information. They may read the false information from another source and feel that it contradicts the information that I am providing.

It is interesting in the case of libel, if I write "That guy is an alcoholic" then I am implying that I have hidden knowledge that confirms my statement. If on the other hand, I write "That guy is an alcoholic because he walked out of a bar" then I am disclosing my reasoning for coming to that conclusion. The former is libel.

From a Christian perspective Mark 7: 20-23 reads:

He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

Deceit or Slander is against the teachings of God. Those teachings are there to protect us and all those we interact with. They are guard rails that prevent us from suffering unnecessary harm.

Providing all information and stating sources whenever possible gives an individual the freedom to determine for themselves what is true or false. Withholding information that I know to be true can be considered to be deceit.

 

[Chriliman]

Who gets to decide what's 'true' or 'false'?

You do. The challenge is convincing others what’s true and what’s false. Using verifiable facts in a loving way tends to work well

 

[Chriliman]

Of course.

I can't really see a situation where allowing false information to harm people makes sense.

Is it better to allow the false information to be seen, but refute it with true information in a careful/loving way, hopefully before harm is caused?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is it better to allow the false information to be seen, but refute it with true information in a careful/loving way, hopefully before harm is caused?

If you are protecting people from harm by explaining the truth (rather than spreading the false information) then I can see that making sense.

Even then, one must take care since people often believe the first version of a story they hear, and it is harder to dislodge the idea even if it's false.

The continued influence effect is when misinformation continues to influence people even after it has been corrected. In short, it is the failure of corrections.

Even effective corrections, such as ones with lots of detail that affirm the facts rather than repeat the misinformation, can wear off after just one week. In the words of Ullrich Ecker, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, “the continued influence effect seems to defy most attempts to eliminate it.”

Most crucially, it means that when it comes to misinformation, prevention is preferable to cure.

 

[Chriliman]

If you are protecting people from harm by explaining the truth (rather than spreading the false information) then I can see that making sense.

Even then, one must take care since people often believe the first version of a story they hear, and it is harder to dislodge the idea even if it's false.

The continued influence effect is when misinformation continues to influence people even after it has been corrected. In short, it is the failure of corrections.

Even effective corrections, such as ones with lots of detail that affirm the facts rather than repeat the misinformation, can wear off after just one week. In the words of Ullrich Ecker, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, “the continued influence effect seems to defy most attempts to eliminate it.”

Most crucially, it means that when it comes to misinformation, prevention is preferable to cure.

woah! Interesting! Thank you! I need to process this...

 

[Robban]

woah! Interesting! Thank you! I need to process this...

Proverbs 18:17

 

[Chrystal-J]

You do. The challenge is convincing others what’s true and what’s false. Using verifiable facts in a loving way tends to work well

In this cancel culture, that can get you in the Lion's Den fast.