The Information Environment and Blameworthy Beliefs

Millar, Boyd

doi:10.1080/02691728.2019.1676840

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a more detailed discussion of speech categories and their First Amendment protections, see Sumner 2004. 46 Misinformation through social media has received philosophical treatment from Millar (Millar 2019), Obadă (Obadă 2019) and Pepp, Michaelson, and Sterken (Pepp, Michaelson, and Sterken 2019). likely be other outlets that profit from the dissemination of misinformation and refuse to concede that such content is inauthentic, thereby catering to an audience that is willing (even eager) to consume misinformation.…”

Section: (V) Marketplace Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deepfake Technology and Individual Rights

Sturino¹

2023

Social Theory and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deepfake technology can be used to produce videos of real individuals, saying and doing things that they never in fact said or did, that appear highly authentic. Having accepted the premise that Deepfake content can constitute a legitimate form of expression, it is not immediately clear where the rights of content producers and distributors end, and where the rights of individuals whose likenesses are used in this content begin. This paper explores the question of whether it can be plausibly argued that Deepfake content involving the likenesses of real individuals violates the rights of these individuals.

show abstract

Section: (V) Marketplace Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deepfake Technology and Individual Rights

Sturino¹

2023

Social Theory and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Information, when considered beyond the true or false rigid individualistic framework, can be explored as social epistemology (Fallis, 2002). Information can also promote goals like personal contemplation (Gorichanaz & Latham, 2019), and lead to more questions about individuals' capacities and obligations when living in an information environment (Millar, 2019).…”

Section: Related Work: the Individualistic Lens Of Seeing Problematic Information As The Opposite Of Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding information: Adding a non‐individualistic lens

2020

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The individualistic lens refers to the understanding of problematic information as something that is clearly identifiable, with objective criteria of measurement. This article argues for adding a non‐individualistic lens for understanding information. The necessity for adding a non‐individualistic lens grows from that the existing individualistic lens appears inadequate to make sense of information phenomenon, in particular when it comes to understanding problematic information. Non‐individualistic is proposed as a complementary perspective, which needs to be further developed conceptually. To begin such development, this article directs information professionals' attention to the promising concept of information ecology. More specifically, this article pulls resources from philosophy of information (Floridi's infosphere) and information ethics (Capurro's Angeletics) to illustrate existing conceptualizations of information ecology. Information ecology appears to align with this sociotechnical view that information researchers have started to develop in the most recent years, though arguably information ecology may have an even broader scope. Lastly, this article also points out that the conceptualization of information ecology needs to be aware of, and cautious of the philosophical assumption that is relied on for understanding information.

show abstract

“…The second is supplied by B. Millar (2019), who has defended the view that social media users are fully excused by their cognitive biases and the way in which social media algorithms amplify the effects of our cognitive limitations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consuming Fake News: Can We Do Any Better?

Croce¹,

Piazza²

2021

Social Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on extant approaches to counteract the consumption of fake news online. Proponents of structural approaches suggest that our proneness to consuming fake news could only be reduced by reshaping the architecture of online environments. Proponents of educational approaches suggest that fake news consumers should be empowered to improve their epistemic agency. In this paper, we address a question that is relevant to this debate: namely, whether fake news consumers commit mistakes for which they can be criticized and that they could easily avoid by reforming their doxastic conduct. Proponents of structural approaches, like R. Rini and B. Millar, have defended in different ways a negative answer to this question. In this paper, we criticize their views and suggest that individual users could improve on their epistemic practice by widening their information diet.

show abstract

The Information Environment and Blameworthy Beliefs

Cited by 8 publications

References 49 publications

Deepfake Technology and Individual Rights

Deepfake Technology and Individual Rights

Understanding information: Adding a non‐individualistic lens

Consuming Fake News: Can We Do Any Better?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About