Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing "what is this malinformation of which you speak?" I actually thought of making this video a while back, when I first saw, a while back, a few days ago, when I first saw the sort of Congressional hearing on censorship involving RFK Jr. in which RFK Jr. they attempted to censor him from that platform, on live television which I found to be irony of the highest level. I mean it was just funny to watch quite frankly in certain ways, as funny as it was horrific because in the US context, free speech is such a major issue. That being said, he brought up something I thought was really interesting which was they were saying that he used a lot of misinformation and things and he sort of immediately fired back and said, "no I haven't, I have cited everything that I have said, I have tried to be assiduous in that way" and believe me I can totally understand that because I try to do the same thing in my day-to-day especially out in the ether of the internet if you will.

So I started digging into this notion of malinformation because and I am paraphrasing here; I believe he said, and I will go ahead and I will put a link up to Jimmy Dores’ channel because I originally watched it on Forbes or something and then I kind of circled back to it on Jimmy Dores’ channel. Jimmy does a really good job of sort of breaking down a lot of what's going on in that overall back and forth. But when they got to the issue of misinformation, disinformation - disinformation I think the layman's word for that is lying. You know what you are saying is not correct and you are saying it anyway. Misinformation could be innocuous in the sense that somebody may not know that they are giving out erroneous data. They are espousing data points that they may believe may be correct but are not in fact correct. Again, in my mind, the cure for bad information is more information because the good information will eventually come out but whatever, we will leave that alone. But then he got into the notion of  ‘malinformation’ and RFK specifically pointed this out saying this was a word they created, I think to paraphrase him correctly, to deal with him’ and I think when he said "him" it was sort of "him and his ilk" if you will. People that have the data behind them but the Government just doesn't like it. Again, I think I am paraphrasing this; check the link. I am happy to stand corrected but I am close to it where I say paraphrasing RFK, he said that "I had the data and they just didn't like it", that was the issue. So I kind of went through and started researching the term "malinformation". Now you have got to remember in the US context, the government can't put up a bunch of stuff about this malinformation because again we have the First amendment. As noted in a prior injunction from the Federal Courts where the Federal Courts have now told the US Government that "Hey, you need to not be having these pow wows with the social media folks talking about basically censorship" and that was basically what this recent federal injunction was about. Now how that plays out remains to be seen but it is interesting stuff.

And again, circling back to malinformation, I went ahead and went over to the Canadian Center for Cyber Security because they don't have the same rules up there as we do in the United States specifically something called the First amendment to the United States Constitution, and I found this on the website www.cyber.gc.ca, so again it's the Canadian Center for Cyber Security. The title of this is: How to identify misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. Then under the heading of malinformation, they give the definition. "Malinformation refers to information that stems from the truth but is often exaggerated in a way that misleads and causes potential harm." Boy, wow. If we are going to get into what stems from truth, a; what is exaggerated, b, and then the definition of ‘misleads or causes potential harm’, those are real problems in terms of trying to figure out from a free speech standpoint, what exactly those things are. Again I am going to put this back up on screen; so again I am rereading this: "malinformation refers to information that stems from the truth," what is that? It is either true or not. How does something "stem" from the truth? Okay? Then, "often exaggerated", what does that mean? And who decides what exaggeration is? Who gets to make that determination? And how is that determination not in some way arbitrary and/or capricious? And then, "in a way," that is another one. It is just soft "in a way", what is "in a way", what is "a way"? Okay? "That misleads", okay who determines what's misleading if the underlying information stems from the truth? "and causes potential harm". What is potential harm? What is that? There's harm or there is not! That is like being "sort of pregnant"! It is one or the other. Again, I have a hard time disputing Mr. Kennedy's assertion that malinformation is just true stuff that you don't like. It's very hard to dispute that assertion on the part of Mr. Kennedy; I just don't see where you come up with that. 

So again misinformation and disinformation, I don't like those terms much either but at least they have some substance, they have something you can hold on to. Again disinformation, somebody is intentionally putting out erroneous information. Misinformation, you may not be fully informed, you may just be wrong about something. Again I don't think that is call for censorship at all; again, I don't see why that would seem relevant but in terms of malinformation, I just think, come on, at the end of the day just because you don't like it if it's true, you have got to go ahead and deal with it.