The Case Against the Terms: Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-Information
In recent years, the terms "misinformation," "disinformation," and "malinformation" have crept into public discourse, wielded by media, government agencies, and social media platforms as tools of suppression and division. These terms are not only unnecessary but also harmful, eroding the foundations of free speech, curiosity, and open inquiry. They are weapons of manipulation, designed to control narratives and stifle dissent. The world would be far better off without these linguistic abominations, which serve only to divide, censor, and distort truth.
First, consider the redundancy of these terms. The English language already possesses a rich vocabulary to describe falsehoods, manipulation, and lies. We have words like "falsehood," "deception," "lie," "propaganda," and "manipulation," all of which precisely define various forms of untruth. The invention of new terms smacks of a deliberate attempt to obscure and confuse. Language shapes thought, and by muddying the waters with these neologisms, false narratives replace the quest for truth. There is power in correctly defining words; the introduction of these terms reeks of manipulation, as they often serve as catch-all labels to dismiss inconvenient truths or silence opposing viewpoints. The need for these words is an illusion, one that should be discarded in favor of plain and precise language that fosters clarity and understanding.
Moreover, the use of these terms is not just unnecessary—it is harmful. When ideas and information are labeled as "misinformation" or "disinformation," they are often summarily dismissed or even censored. This creates a dangerous environment where free speech is curtailed, curiosity is stifled, and reasoned thought is discouraged. The harm becomes even more apparent when what was once labeled as "misinformation" later proves to be true. History is replete with examples of this: scientific theories, political ideas, and conspiracy theories that were initially ridiculed or suppressed have later been vindicated. By prematurely labeling and censoring ideas, society loses the opportunity to explore and discover the truth. The chilling effect on open inquiry cannot be overstated; these terms create intellectual ghettos where only sanctioned ideas are allowed to thrive, while dissenting voices are silenced.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Most insidiously, these terms are wielded as tools of manipulation. When information is labeled as "misinformation" or "disinformation," it often triggers censorship campaigns, either by governments, tech companies, or self-appointed guardians of truth. These campaigns do not just silence the targeted information—they divide society into opposing camps. People are forced into "sides," where they must either accept the official narrative or risk being branded as purveyors of "misinformation." This division serves those in power, who benefit from a populace that is distracted, divided, and easier to control. The terms become weapons in a broader war against free thought and open discourse, creating an environment where the public is manipulated rather than informed.
We would be best served by rejecting these Orwellian labels and returning to a discourse grounded in clear, precise language that encourages free inquiry and the pursuit of truth. The power of words should be used to illuminate, not to obscure; to unite, not to divide. By discarding these toxic terms, we take a step toward a more open, honest, and free society - where ideas can be debated without fear of suppression, and where the truth is something to be discovered, not dictated.
Technical Fabrication
2moAgree, it's only purpose seems to be to silence decenting views. Sort of like racist when applied to things that have nothing to do with race. Hate speech because something doesn't agree with some minority fringe group. Don't forget, "That offends me" or some viewers find it offensive.
One could think of a dictionary of this newspeak. Have you noticed “prebunking� Or “infodemic� You would be surprised by the influence of this online course series: https://openwho.org/channels/infodemic-management You don’t need to have *any* higher education, much less scientific background, to go through this training. Yet graduates of this thing can be put in interestingly strategic positions to impart their newly acquired online knowledge on the world, passionately act to delimit the discourse, and often slander actual professionals not following the narrative. I can share a particularly juicy example from my native Poland: juicy in terms of reach, of ideological fury, and of, uhm, qualifications of the said graduate. But judging from what I have seen here over last four years, this most professional platform might not prove particularly helpful in having such a discussion openly.
Wild Card - draw me for a winning hand | Creative Problem Solver in Many Roles | Manual Software QA | Project Management | Business Analysis | Auditing | Accounting |
2mo1984 doublespeak is always used to deceive people. It is used primarily by sociopaths who harm others with their sociopathy.
How Can I Help?
2moThinking of changing the title to something more definitive, I want to be clear that there is NEVER an appropriate time or use for these words, and that the world would be a better place if they were never used. Not sometimes, not in certain cases, never ever. I'm a believer in the non aggression principle, which says that involuntary force is always amoral. As such, I do not say things like "you should..." and I do not use command forms of verbs with others. So I don't want to change the title to "Never use these terms" as snappy as something like that would be.