冠状病毒时代的公共理性：荷兰的虚假信息反击。

IF 2.3 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1017/S0963180125000027

Martin Buijsen

{"title":"冠状病毒时代的公共理性：荷兰的虚假信息反击。","authors":"Martin Buijsen","doi":"10.1017/S0963180125000027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Reason in Times of Corona: Countering Disinformation in the Netherlands.\",\"authors\":\"Martin Buijsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0963180125000027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180125000027\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180125000027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个自由民主国家，谁来决定什么是虚假信息？在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间，荷兰卫生部成立的一个委员会积极阻止虚假信息。该委员会由公务员、通信专家、公共卫生专家以及Facebook、Twitter和LinkedIn等商业在线平台的代表组成。在很大程度上，疫苗犹豫归因于虚假信息，定义为具有有害意图的错误信息（或数据误解）。在本研究中，通过反思我们需要什么来尊重公共理性来回答这个问题：合理性，适当参与公共话语的意愿，以及对自由民主制度的信任。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Public Reason in Times of Corona: Countering Disinformation in the Netherlands.

Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

11.10%

发文量

127

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.