• madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 month ago

          The saying works for day to day random bullshit. Not when a cocksucker buys a media outlet specifically to spread lies.

      • borth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        To that I’d say, “don’t attribute to ignorance what can easily be explained by greed”

        • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          What does greed have to do with spreading misinformation? Even the term itself implies ignorance. If it was intentional it would be called disinformation.

      • minnow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 month ago

        Ah yes, Hanlon’s razor. Genuinely a great one to keep in mind at all times, along with it’s corollary Clarke’s law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”

        But in this particular case I think we need the much less frequently cited version by Douglas Hubbard: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        adequately explained.

        The ignorance doesn’t explain where all the money comes from. So malice it is! Lol

        • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          We’re talking about spreading misinformation, which by definition implies ignorance. If it was intentional it would be called disinformation.

          • Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Misinformation is not defined by the knowledge of the one who spreads it (like if the spreader knows that it is wrong), it is therefore a useful word to use in journalism, since, if you would say it is lie or disinformation, you would have to be able to prove that or the victim of your text can sue you for misusing your credibility to spread misinformation (yea, funny irony here) and force you to take the story down.

      • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Don’t contribute to ignorance that which can be easily explained by malice and is much more likely to be malice due to their history of malice. The guy is King of bitter malice, the fuck are you saying