Easier to be plausible, than to be right
Proving once again that Blogs, and in particular Blawgs, are better at sounding plausible than getting things dead right, we have the latest non-scandal.
Like many non-events, including most of the Patriot Act, the Frist stock-trading non-scandal, and innumerable other Big Bad Things That Didn't Happen, at least not the way that they were at first portrayed, the blawgs were quick to disseminate the big news:
They're criminalizing anonablawging!
Well, sort of.
Criminalizing trolls!
Not exactly.
As Kip, Esquire brilliantly stitches (that is, rapidly notes without much need for depth, because he's accurate) on the new bits of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),
New VAWA 'Annoying' Clause is Indeed Annoying -- But Not to Blogs
It's about _transmissions_, not blog posts. It does specify anonymity, and it says "annoy." But it also specifies "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent." It also isn't new that it is criminal to send an anonymous harassing phone call containing non-protected speech. What's new is that if you send the phone call via the Internet it's now illegal. That's it. That's all.
So when Mike says at Congress Passes, and the President Signs, Laughably Unconstitutional Law, it's plausible. Not in fact, but on its face. He's following on Sean Sirrine, who may have gotten his information from someone more reliable than Declan McCullagh, but it's not the point. Dozens of blawg posts are surely going live with the same idea: annoying blog posts are being criminalized! This can't be constitutional!
It takes someone like Kip to actually, say, examine the content of the law - be it ever so briefly - and pass on, not hysteria, but thoughtful commentary based on the _actual law_. I expect to see many, many more excellent blawg posts on a law that doesn't exist in the next week or two. How the law (that doesn't exist) would be unconstitutional. Why the law (as it wasn't passed) should not be passed. Why Congress and/or the President are foolishing for passing the law they didn't pass. Etc.
As this post title suggests, I'm getting tired of blawging that's more plausible than correct. The first is easy; just apply mostly-rigorous reasoning to rumor and speculation. The second is harder, requiring either careful research and reading, or exceptionally rigorous reasoning applied to rumor and speculation. In any case, GIGO. Your conclusions are only as good as your inputs, multiplied by the size of the grain of salt you assume in calculating the likelihood that your inputs are in fact false.
Like many non-events, including most of the Patriot Act, the Frist stock-trading non-scandal, and innumerable other Big Bad Things That Didn't Happen, at least not the way that they were at first portrayed, the blawgs were quick to disseminate the big news:
They're criminalizing anonablawging!
Well, sort of.
Criminalizing trolls!
Not exactly.
As Kip, Esquire brilliantly stitches (that is, rapidly notes without much need for depth, because he's accurate) on the new bits of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),
New VAWA 'Annoying' Clause is Indeed Annoying -- But Not to Blogs
It's about _transmissions_, not blog posts. It does specify anonymity, and it says "annoy." But it also specifies "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent." It also isn't new that it is criminal to send an anonymous harassing phone call containing non-protected speech. What's new is that if you send the phone call via the Internet it's now illegal. That's it. That's all.
So when Mike says at Congress Passes, and the President Signs, Laughably Unconstitutional Law, it's plausible. Not in fact, but on its face. He's following on Sean Sirrine, who may have gotten his information from someone more reliable than Declan McCullagh, but it's not the point. Dozens of blawg posts are surely going live with the same idea: annoying blog posts are being criminalized! This can't be constitutional!
It takes someone like Kip to actually, say, examine the content of the law - be it ever so briefly - and pass on, not hysteria, but thoughtful commentary based on the _actual law_. I expect to see many, many more excellent blawg posts on a law that doesn't exist in the next week or two. How the law (that doesn't exist) would be unconstitutional. Why the law (as it wasn't passed) should not be passed. Why Congress and/or the President are foolishing for passing the law they didn't pass. Etc.
As this post title suggests, I'm getting tired of blawging that's more plausible than correct. The first is easy; just apply mostly-rigorous reasoning to rumor and speculation. The second is harder, requiring either careful research and reading, or exceptionally rigorous reasoning applied to rumor and speculation. In any case, GIGO. Your conclusions are only as good as your inputs, multiplied by the size of the grain of salt you assume in calculating the likelihood that your inputs are in fact false.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Plausible-sounding economics: Not Necessarily Not Wrong
- Easier to be plausible, than to be right