What's wrong with the slogan "Don't believe in rumors, don't spread rumors"?

Recently, I plan to write something to analyze the internal contradictions of some slogans and rhetoric popular in the public opinion field one by one. Let's start with the slogan "Don't believe in rumors, don't spread rumors" that has become the most popular recently.

The concept of rumor is actually very complicated, and there are roughly two ways to define it. One is the formal definition, that is, gossip on the street, emphasizing its unofficial nature; the other is the substantive definition, that is, emphasizing its internal and external In the comparison of the world, if it does not match, it is false.

The slogan of "don't believe in rumors, don't spread rumors" literally follows the substantive definition, that is, "don't spread fake news" and "don't spread lies". Inference, official announcements, news reports, and gossip may all constitute rumors (in fact, in this epidemic, Wuhan's official announcement of "no new cases" in the early stage was inconsistent with the facts and constituted substantial rumors , and caused great harm)

However, during the practice of this slogan, the definition of rumors returned to the hands of external authorities, that is, the formal definition was taken as the premise, the source was used as the pre-judgment standard, and the question of authenticity was delayed. During this process, official announcements were naturally Eliminate the suspicion that may constitute a substantive rumor, and obtain the pre-existing legitimacy (so the remarks of 8 people who may be more in line with the facts are labeled as "rumors", and the official false announcement will naturally have no objection Its "rumor rebuttal" said)

The reason for this slippage in definition lies in who has the power to define rumors. When the power to define rumors is finally in the hands of external authorities, the understanding of information is simply stripped into two parts: "truth" and "rumor". In this dimension, as long as you label "rumours", you have ulterior motives and can be wiped out. This is actually in the same line as the will to "divide the enemy from ourselves"; Spread unofficially confirmed news” so that “don’t spread unofficial news”, and official news has been stripped of the dimension of rumors, so you can sit back and relax.

Secondly, based on what we usually understand, that is, the definition of substance, this slogan also contains three groups of paradoxes that face self-deconstruction. Rumors will always be spread, precisely because there are always rumors that will eventually be proved to be true; rumors are spread precisely because rumors cannot be immediately disproven (the discussion here has ruled out their own logical illogicality, intellectual errors, etc. The part that is immediately falsified); rumors can only be called rumors if they are spread. "In the face of the above three groups of contradictions, it can only be reduced to empty talk.

Finally, the spread of rumors often fits a certain current social psychology and is rooted in some deep social facts. Therefore, it is impossible to ban the spread of rumors. Simply put, before the rumors of "closing the city" were spread, in fact, " "City closure" already exists in people's psychological facts, and this psychological fact is caused by the existing fact that many cities have been closed one after another.

Therefore, if "don't believe in rumors, don't spread rumors" is really effective, what are the possibilities——

Do not disseminate any unofficial information (this will return to the presupposition that only official releases are not rumors, and the power to judge rumors returns to the authority; secondly, this is technically difficult to achieve unless all online platforms are closed)

It is up to the individual to judge whether it is a rumor or not, and move towards a personal and relative judgment standard (essentially equivalent to disseminating information that "I don't think it is a rumor". Whether a rumor is personal or not, what is the meaning of this slogan?)

The improvement of the information coordination and falsification mechanism (in short, the "rumor refutation" mechanism, as for choosing a core authority to determine which is true and which is false, or allowing information from different channels to self-reference and self-reveal, is related to what kind of human nature Definition as a starting point is also related to different understandings of press freedom. Of course, what we see here is the first one, the power to judge rumors returns to the hands of authorities, and returns to the double standard again.)

In short, "Don't believe in rumors, don't spread rumors" implies a set of double standards. On the surface, authenticity is the standard (substantive definition), but in fact the source is the pre-judgment (formal definition). In this switch, The official news was firstly wiped out of the suspicion that it might constitute a substantive rumor, and the judgment of the information also fell into the simple labeling dichotomy of "rumor" and "truth".

*(This set of criticism based on double standards is also applicable to a series of labeled slogans such as "incitement" and "with rhythm")