The fundamental problem[1] with employing these kinds of cover-ups in political or politicized public debates is that, as Matt Yglesias has convincingly explained, misinformation mostly confuses your own side.
Relevant excerpts:
It’s pretty easy to persuade a large minority of the public of something, but the people you persuade are almost certainly going to be people who would vote for you anyway. Convincing high-value persuasion targets is a lot harder. And there can be huge second-order downsides to convincing your supporters of things that are not actually true. It may feel savvy to support sloppy, misleading, or inaccurate work from your own side, but it’s often counterproductive.
[...]
My bottom line on this is that saying things that are true is underrated and saying things that are false is overrated.
We’re all acutely aware of the false or misleading things our political opponents say, and it’s easy to convince yourself in the spirit of “turnabout is fair play” that the key to victory is to play dirty, too. The real problem, though, is that not only does your side already say more false and misleading things than you’d like to admit, but they are almost certainly saying more false and misleading things than you realize. That’s because your side is much better at misleading you than they are at misleading people outside of your ideological camp, and this kind of own-team deception creates huge tactical and strategic problems.
Note that I recognize your post goes beyond mere partisan politics, but I think Matt’s writing compactly summarizes the fundamental issue at play in that specific case.
Beyond violating deontological commitments to truth-seeking and truth-telling and the wizard’s code of honor, which only really matter to the extent you care about them in the first place
This really strikes IMO as something that has gone especially wrong with (especially liberal) politics in the last 15-ish years. Communication almost entirely aimed at riling up your own side rather than growing its ranks, which is perceived as successful but in fact does absolutely nothing other than make the loud minority louder.
The fundamental problem[1] with employing these kinds of cover-ups in political or politicized public debates is that, as Matt Yglesias has convincingly explained, misinformation mostly confuses your own side.
Relevant excerpts:
Note that I recognize your post goes beyond mere partisan politics, but I think Matt’s writing compactly summarizes the fundamental issue at play in that specific case.
Beyond violating deontological commitments to truth-seeking and truth-telling and the wizard’s code of honor, which only really matter to the extent you care about them in the first place
This really strikes IMO as something that has gone especially wrong with (especially liberal) politics in the last 15-ish years. Communication almost entirely aimed at riling up your own side rather than growing its ranks, which is perceived as successful but in fact does absolutely nothing other than make the loud minority louder.