Nope, that's a tautological definition. The idea that facts can be easily agreed upon is deeply naive. Information that is not factually true can still have partial truths that can be illuminating, or point to truths or perspectives, or even be used as evidence.
It's a stupid word. It has no more value than something like "fake news" because of how it is employed; as a blunt weapon to end conversations and/or operationalize/validate censorship.
Why is all scientific dialog immediately, unthinkingly forced into "misinformation"?
The word is just a proxy for saying you disagree with something.
There is no such thing as 'misinformation'. Even something incorrect is still information.
mis information is information that is not factually true. Disagreeing is an opinion, based on a value set.
Nope, that's a tautological definition. The idea that facts can be easily agreed upon is deeply naive. Information that is not factually true can still have partial truths that can be illuminating, or point to truths or perspectives, or even be used as evidence.
It's a stupid word. It has no more value than something like "fake news" because of how it is employed; as a blunt weapon to end conversations and/or operationalize/validate censorship.
Right. We've gotten to the point where Newtonian physics is misinformation.