What's the difference between information and disinformation?

I think the name of this subforum is misnamed. It sounds catchier than "deconstructing propaganda" or "deconstructing information" but the choice of wording is terrible.

It falls under the category of the "one true Scotsman" fallacy. While the fact that it is fallicious logic doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, it does mean that the argument for calling it that should be seriously considered.

One of the assumptions contained within it is that the user of the word knows that it is false, or otherwise not "genuine" information. While this site is primarily about calling into question the "conventional" story, there is no implication that it is true information replacing it. It is for this reason that I would be much more cautious about accepting ANYTHING on this website than I would on TV or any website with a monetary stake in the accuracy of the information they're putting out.

a reply to: zackli

It's not a fallacy if you break apart what the words mean.

Here is the definition of information:

Full Definition of INFORMATION. 1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence. 2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : intelligence, news (3) : facts, data.

And "dis":

a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force (see de-, un-2.); used freely, especially with these ...

So you could think of disinformation as being the privative of the attainment of knowledge or intelligence.

You could just leave out the "dis" part I suppose and just add an extra explanation such as "information that held no reasonable truth"...but that's not as quick.

a reply to: zackli

Sure wth not, dis-information is still information, but this is where it is supposed to go to be de-constructed.

a reply to: zackli

false, or otherwise not "genuine" information

"A lie will travel around the world before the truth has had a chance to put it's shoes on"

The difference between information and disinformation is intent, disinformation strives to ensure you believe the lie.....which leads to propaganda.

a reply to: zackli

While it's very hard to argue with fairly concrete logic, and I basically agree with what you are saying, another way to look at it is we are engaged in dissecting the lies….i.e., disinformation, which is a lie presented as the truth to purposefully mislead. So, the idea would be to expose those lies, and carefully expose them, proving they are, indeed, false, while pcking them apart to find the reasons and motives behind them, in hopes that will lead to the truth.

Now, the latter may not happen (the finding of the truth), and while many, maybe even all, of us are hoping to find truth, most people here don't claim to have it. That, in fact, is probably met with the closest scrutiny around these parts: anyone claiming to have, know or be telling the truth. Most people asserting truth, are just like con men asserting you can trust them….lol. But clearly, there are many here searching for truth.

While I am unhappy with the site's "money banner," surely we all realize that everyone and everything in this world, pretty much, has a monetary stake, and sooner or later, has to. Don't you suppose that it takes administrative time, effort and specific knowlege on a daily basis to maintain the site? How would we expect those engaged in doing and providing all that to live, after all? And there is an upside to it in that at least they are up front about it.
And they are not advertising themselves as providers of truth, necessarily. In fact, the site is categorically entertainment.

However, my warning about the site would be more along the lines of where the servers for it are, who provides them, who is on their administrative board as consultants---more along those lines, than any effort to make money off it. Those motivating factors would seem to me to be much more concerning and indicate a need for awareness, than any effort to make money.

Consider the motto of denying ignorance, comparatively and conjunctively, with the idea of tacit consent and cognitive dissonance, which is the condition of many of us….and which the information found here will certainly produce.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

The difference between information and disinformation is intent, disinformation strives to ensure you believe the lie.....which leads to propaganda.

The problem with that is that in both cases, there is an intent that you will believe the "information". If you mean that the one disseminating the information knows it is a lie, it is almost irrelevant because it is impossible to discern someone's intent or level of knowledge based solely on the information presented. You could look at the way it is phrased, looking for phrases that imply a determination on their part to get you to believe it, but I think that is way different than what is typically meant by the phrase (which deals strictly with the content rather than the style of presentation).

Using that as a way to tell means the ideal way to present "disinformation" is to imply that it doesn't matter whether or not you think it's true, such as with science. The reason it doesn't matter if you believe it or not is because it is purported to happen anyway.

a reply to: zackli

I think its alright.

In some ways, the most effective strategy in these times is to just look at everything we're told as information, without giving it any truth value until you see more. Once you know its disinformation, then the deconstruction process is really powerful: Its a process through which you can learn truth from BS - in deconstructing it, you can can learn what they want you to think, what ideas they want you to embrace, and you can start thinking about why they want you to believe that.

a reply to: OrphanApology

While I am unhappy with the site's "money banner," surely we all realize that everyone and everything in this world, pretty much, has a monetary stake, and sooner or later, has to. Don't you suppose that it takes administrative time, effort and specific knowlege on a daily basis to maintain the site? How would we expect those engaged in doing and providing all that to live, after all? And there is an upside to it in that at least they are up front about it.
And they are not advertising themselves as providers of truth, necessarily. In fact, the site is categorically entertainment.

There is a difference between the two, but that is probably more of a difference in metaphors. If a news network, for instance, tells a lie, it has to revoke it and apologize. ATS is more akin to a channel on television, with each of its individual members being like the shows on the channel. The site, as the "channel", isn't responsible for the individual show telling you the truth. The show is, only no one expects the show to be telling the truth.

What I just said is basically what you said in that the site is not advertising itself as telling the "truth". That the site is "categorically entertainment" is the same thing as what all channels are, and I don't think that fact is typically given the consideration it should. Even channels concerned with being "educational" have shows that are entertainment, and basically all channels have ads.

a reply to: zackli

That's simple. Disinformation is delivered with the primary goal of confusing the target.

For example, observe the news flow 2 weeks before an election.

Disinformation is what you pay your cable company for...anywhere from $40-$100 a month.

Information is what you get here on ATS.

DIS

I agree with Sublimecraft. www.abovetopsecret.com...
The final conclusion reached by thinking based on disinformation or the avoidance of a conclusion is the goal.

Disinformation need not be untrue.

For example

"Hitler hated and fought the Communist Totalitarian State."

This is true but could to lead one to think that Hitler would be a friend to all who hate and fight Communism, and could be made to cultivate an idea that Hitler is a free market anarchist, with a few oblique suggestions.

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: [post=18892713]OrphanApology
a reply to: OrphanApology [/post=18892713]

This is what I (tetra50) wrote, that you quoted in your reply to OrphanApology:


While I am unhappy with the site's "money banner," surely we all realize that everyone and everything in this world, pretty much, has a monetary stake, and sooner or later, has to. Don't you suppose that it takes administrative time, effort and specific knowlege on a daily basis to maintain the site? How would we expect those engaged in doing and providing all that to live, after all? And there is an upside to it in that at least they are up front about it.
And they are not advertising themselves as providers of truth, necessarily. In fact, the site is categorically entertainment.


And your response to that content written by me, but directed at OrphanApology:

There is a difference between the two, but that is probably more of a difference in metaphors. If a news network, for instance, tells a lie, it has to revoke it and apologize. ATS is more akin to a channel on television, with each of its individual members being like the shows on the channel. The site, as the "channel", isn't responsible for the individual show telling you the truth. The show is, only no one expects the show to be telling the truth.

What I just said is basically what you said in that the site is not advertising itself as telling the "truth". That the site is "categorically entertainment" is the same thing as what all channels are, and I don't think that fact is typically given the consideration it should. Even channels concerned with being "educational" have shows that are entertainment, and basically all channels have ads.

Don't know if it's a mistake, that you would need to "retract," or something else going on: But I can't take anything about this seriously, since, you replied here, to member Orphan Apology, but the quoted text you are replying to, herein, is mine: tetra50. So until this correction is applied, I can't take anything said here seriously.
tetra

Both can be used to define a specific boundary between concepts - in the same way that negative space can define the object that it is not part of.

Disconstructing disinformation = Constructing information

Both can be used to 'decieve'. Misinformation can be part of both.

Å99

a reply to: tetra50

But I can't take anything about this seriously

You can't take anything about it seriously? Is there some fault in your brain that stops you from seeing past a mistake in the formatting of a post? I mean no disrespect, but that is seriously abnormal and should be examined by a professional. People make mistakes, and I'm not planning to correct it. If that means you are unable to respond, that's fine, but if someone is so uncompromising, they don't deserve compromise.

Information is a description of real events, happenings, factual data or other accurate and precise intelligence.

Disinformation is a trojan horse that appears like the above description but is anything except that.

Simply put: TRUE or FALSE