Perhaps because right wing sources have a higher tendency to create disinformation and fabricate facts than left. As an example today most far right wing politics in Western countries seem to be based on dangers of a non-existing enemy. Similarly Russian troll farms generally disseminate right wing ideologies in the form of distorted facts. Staying center for a knowledge source is the ideal but if I had to pick a side would definitely go center left.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
more a reflection of your own values than of reality
Hard to say how much one’s comments are affected by values but anyone who says they are completely unaffected is discussing in bad faith. So I won’t claim it does not.
It is possible that right-wing sources,
Yes but one is ideological agression (left-wing) the other one is fact fabrication (right-wing). If I had to choose one I would still go for the first despite it being far from ideal. I do believe that both sides have a tendency to leave out facts that don’t support their priors (consciously or unconsciously) but fact fabrication comes from the “ends justifies the means” perspective which I think leans more heavily to the right wing as of now (might not always been as such though).
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus
Imagine the following case: Assume we have the following as facts (I am not claiming it is):
1- Infection confers more broad immunity than vaccines.
2- People at risk (elderly, newborn, low immunity) have a much higher risk of dying from a newly encountered virus (COVID) when they get infected without a vaccination.
3- In general people have a higher probability of hospitalization if they encounter a virus for the first time and without having been vaccinated.
If now a certain source of information takes this and only presents part 1 because in their ideology vaccination is wrong and they want to prove it, then this source of information is still wrong despite showing something correct. Not only they are wrong but they may bias people’s perspective so as to actually cause harm against others. In this case you may remove this source for its purpose and not because what it presents is wrong. It only uses a piece of the information to distort perspective. Without seeing the original discussion as to why that source was removed I can not really justify or condemn the action that was performed there. Do you have a link to the discussion?
Perhaps because right wing sources have a higher tendency to create disinformation and fabricate facts than left. As an example today most far right wing politics in Western countries seem to be based on dangers of a non-existing enemy. Similarly Russian troll farms generally disseminate right wing ideologies in the form of distorted facts. Staying center for a knowledge source is the ideal but if I had to pick a side would definitely go center left.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
Hard to say how much one’s comments are affected by values but anyone who says they are completely unaffected is discussing in bad faith. So I won’t claim it does not.
Yes but one is ideological agression (left-wing) the other one is fact fabrication (right-wing). If I had to choose one I would still go for the first despite it being far from ideal. I do believe that both sides have a tendency to leave out facts that don’t support their priors (consciously or unconsciously) but fact fabrication comes from the “ends justifies the means” perspective which I think leans more heavily to the right wing as of now (might not always been as such though).
Imagine the following case: Assume we have the following as facts (I am not claiming it is):
1- Infection confers more broad immunity than vaccines.
2- People at risk (elderly, newborn, low immunity) have a much higher risk of dying from a newly encountered virus (COVID) when they get infected without a vaccination.
3- In general people have a higher probability of hospitalization if they encounter a virus for the first time and without having been vaccinated.
If now a certain source of information takes this and only presents part 1 because in their ideology vaccination is wrong and they want to prove it, then this source of information is still wrong despite showing something correct. Not only they are wrong but they may bias people’s perspective so as to actually cause harm against others. In this case you may remove this source for its purpose and not because what it presents is wrong. It only uses a piece of the information to distort perspective. Without seeing the original discussion as to why that source was removed I can not really justify or condemn the action that was performed there. Do you have a link to the discussion?