If they’ve internalized/amplified it, they’ll believe the source, and disregard the contradictory information.
This has been well-established over the last, oh, 10 years. Facts are irrelevant if you can choose your own sources.
But if you can prove it wasn't, I'm interested
These are recounts, audits, and security guards. No recounts deviated by that much, even the massive Arizona recount found no significant deviation.
> It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud
Please provide that. The evidence AFAIK is counted as essentially "parts per million", it is so small. Meanwhile there are a variety of safeguards, audits, verifications & recounts.
The null hypothesis in this case I don't believe would be "fraudulent election", so it is a claim.
In the aftermath of this clearly deceptive behavior, they've maintained the support of Republican voters who still believe the lie despite none of the evidence ever being released.
It's one thing to claim something is true and that you have evidence, then release the evidence and find out that it's insufficient to win in court. It's another thing entirely to make a claim, say you have overwhelming evidence to support it, and never release any evidence at all. In the former case, maybe you got overzealous or maybe you were dealing with an unsympathetic judge. In the latter, the only rational way to interpret the situation is that you were intentionally misleading your audience.
In the scientific world, a hypothesis that has no evidence is treated with skepticism.
In the rest of the world, it gets treated as fact, even as evidence against the claim pours in.
If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.
Eventually, yes, but until it happens, bodies are piling up.
EDIT: Also, FWIW, the truth is often exposed nearly immediately, yet for some people, once they have chosen to believe the lie, they can't be convinced of the truth.
In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.
Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0]
Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets.
Speech has consequences.
> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.
...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this.
If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term.
Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences.
What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?
You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.
I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.
Who gets to decide what is misinformation is an entirely different issue. But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation. Again, set aside the question of "Well, who decides what is misinformation?" and consider just the mere concept of it.
Tyranny is the only alternative to free speech. I just don't see it ending in any other way.
> I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.
Awesome! Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.
> But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation.
Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.
Absolutist free speech would allow you to publicly plot the assassination of whomever you wanted to, or permit insider trading, etc.
Speech is a tool. It's utility and morality depends on the weilder of it.
As long as misinformation is costing people's lives, I will make a big deal out of it.
I recognize that I am raising a stink about a problem without proposing a solution.
> Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.
It took us way too long to realize that we agree.
So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.