Misinformation

When I read this word, my stomach turns. There is no such thing as neutral information, because every reporter has their own opinion and even if they try to avoid letting it influence them directly, their perspective is shaped by their own opinion.

Let's take a photo of a politician: If I like him, I'll photograph him from the same angle, at eye level or slightly below. If I don't like him, either slightly above or extremely below. The image is influenced by my opinion. Not to mention which moment I capture – there is no "neutral" information.

Or take England: of course, I can make photos/videos of a peaceful park scene and claim everything is calm. Or I film protests from one side that I want to discredit. It's the same for Ukraine: I could also take holiday beach shots on the Black Sea or maybe shoot dying soldiers or civilians, depending on the message I want to convey.

In an article, the language/formulation already determines the effect of the – supposedly identical – content.

But if there is no neutral information, then there can be no "misinformation" either: it's always opinions paired with facts or lies. There is also no "misspoke" like the Democrats now claim about Walz's statements to his unexecuted war campaign. You say the truth or you lie; that's how simple it is.

A slip of the tongue can happen in German between "two - zwei" and "three - drei", a false statement remains a lie.

The right to free speech and opinion presupposes that I have access to ALL statements in order to form my own opinion. But if a government claims to keep certain opinions from me, this is always CENSORSHIP and violates my fundamental rights.
Whether it's the European "Digital Service Act" or Canada's "Bill C-63 Online Harms Act", they give the government the power to determine which information/opinions I receive and, more importantly, which ones I am allowed to express. Such restrictions cannot be justified by referring to child pornography or similar content, as criminal laws already prohibit such activities and therefore no further regulation is necessary.
They serve only to censor publications and address offenses inadequately.

I don't mind reading articles from right-wing weirdos like neo-Nazis or left-wing wackos like Antifa or extreme environmentalists. However, violent actions by these groups must be condemned and prosecuted under criminal law.
Otherwise, I want to form my own opinion from the entire spectrum of statements available.

I will always advocate for everyone to be able to freely express their own opinions – even if I completely disagree with them. It is an essential part of a democratic society that there are different opinions.

In this sense, I appreciate decentralized protocols like Nostr and support Elon Musk's efforts to protect X from censorship. It's an effort to defend human rights against corrupt and ideologically blinded governments and bureaucracies.