4 ms·

I can see elements of danger if improperly used, but, from my point of view it is no more dangerous than libel laws or any other law which requires explicitly "

by AdamSC1 10y ago

I can see elements of danger if improperly used, but, from my point of view it is no more dangerous than libel laws or any other law which requires explicitly "knowing" what one is doing. A law like that is dangerous only if the burden of proof is on the journalist. Which in our modern society should never be the case. I admit, sadly there seems to many cases now where innocent until proven guilty isn't as strongly held. It is tremendously hard to prove that someone 'knew' the information they were publishing was false (outside of an explicit confession or conversation) and it absolutely should be hard. But, such a law may make people who are in it for the money at least give pause. I can't think of a case where if it isn't fiction, satire, humor, commentary etc etc, and you know it to be false information that you choose to spread as fact, that you aren't doing so with malicious intent to harm others or to personally benefit from the exploitation of others? The social contract of society exists primarily for protection from such actions, and its tool of protection is the law. If there are cases you can think of where that wouldn't be malicious or exploitative I'm really interested. While I still hold true on the idea that the most important thing with fake news is to empower people to make their own autonomous and informed decisions, I'd quite like to be wrong about criminalizing the spread of false information - as I am a fan of as few laws as possible to get the job done (as long as the job is done well.)

inimino 10y ago
I think before seriously proposing a new law, you should think deeply and long about, at least: - how exactly the law will be phrased - how exactly the law will be enforced - what the penalties shall be - all the ways you can reasonably anticipate that the law may be misused, whether obvious or subtle After all that thinking is finished, do a review of the history of laws that are similar to the one that you have proposed and see where and when such laws have existed and how they have worked out in practice. If, after doing all of that, you still support your original proposal, I will be very much taken aback.
- AdamSC1 10y ago
  You put forth that a statement was a dangerous idea. When asked why you can't simply state that you believe things should be thought about "deeply and long". That is not a necessary and sufficient condition for things being a "rather dangerous idea." Let's look at your logic for a second: 1) From the get go you're off with a form of an appeal to a stone (argumentum ad lapidem.) You've suggest that a conclusion is absurd (or in this case dangerous) without any statements as to why or how. 2) You've got an irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi) where in you've assumed prima facie that any proposal of a law that does not meet your list of criteria must ultimately be false regardless of its content. (Don't judge a book by its cover?) 3) When asked for why you've shifted the burden of proof (onus probandi) by instead of trying to state why you believe it is false, telling me that if I go research I will most likely change my position. 4) Finally you make an appeal to emotion (in the form of ab absurdo) in suggesting that your conclusion is so simply logical that you would be taken aback if after following your steps I don't believe the same as you. Thus belittling the original argument. None of this takes into account the fact that it is clear I was not proposing a full new law, nor that your steps would prevent there from being any origin point or idea from which a new law can be born. I readily welcome feedback on my thoughts, I think the ability to create a dialogue around ideas is crucial. We only grow and craft better ideas when we make mistakes and people point them out. My original statement on the law was brash and fully born from emotion, and in its simple one-sentence state it absolutely is filled with problematic generalizations. I welcome feedback on that, and am happy to dialogue about it. But, if you believe something to be wrong, or off, or dangerous then engage in an open dialogue about it. When society shuns away from discussions and usurps their idea as 'better' or 'right' with no substantiation because the other person is 'dumb' or 'wrong' or 'evil' or 'uneducated' that is when we reach an impasse where no one wants to listen to people who don't share their ideals. We polarize one another and that leads to animosity and distrust that drives a wedge further between us. You are right that a one-sentence law about publishing false information would be highly dangerous, but, if you're going to call people out about it online, at least state why you believe that and have an open discussion about it. We'll all be better off for it.
  - inimino 10y ago
    You've made a category error. My indirect suggestion that one should think more deeply before proposing a law was not intended as an argument. It was intended to prompt you to think more deeply. Do not feel I am attacking you. I simply believe that you have experienced the "there oughtta be a law" emotional reflex to an unpleasant situation and that on further reflection you will realize that that actually won't work well.
nostrademons 10y ago
Probably-not-hypothetical case: Tensions rise with Russia over Ukraine/Syria/Baltics/Eastern Europe/etc. The Pentagon draws up contingency plans for responding to an armed conflict in any one of those areas. When questioned by a reporter, the White House responds "We have no plans to go to war with Russia." Should the White House Press Secretary go to jail? I sympathize with the information-libertarian position that holds that all information should be free, truthful, & accessible to everyone. But there's a really big pragmatic problem in that when individual soundbites are pulled out and shared, they lose context. People don't understand the circumstances behind the facts, and they bring all of their own prejudices and emotions along. Oftentimes, reporting the truth brings about a worse outcome (in some cases, a disastrous outcome) than lying to the public. It's not just the government either - corporations, institutions, and individuals lie all the time too, and often for good reasons. I was a Google employee when the Nexus line was under development, and I knew that the official press statement of "We are not and have no plans to develop a phone" was false. The reason for it was that if news of the Nexus line leaked, it would've jeopardized supplier relationships such that there wouldn't be a phone. In some cases you can actually get into logical paradoxes where a statement is true only if everyone believes that it is false and vice versa.
- AdamSC1 10y ago
  I can entirely concede the case for secrecy in these situations. Obviously, my statement is not a full proposal for a specific law, but rather a starting point. There is certainly a level of nuance (as there is with all laws), but, I think it comes down to the difference between publishing content you know to be false for matters of personal gain, manipulation, malice, etc. To be a practical law it would need some sort of clause akin to separate the 'actus rea' from the 'mens rea' as well as the impact. Consider cases in libel. The 'actus rea' (the actual act of committing libel) and saying something defamatory about someone that you believe to be true, is different than the libel which has the 'mens rea' (forethought of the action) in which you made claims you knew to be false but did so for a negative impact against someone else. The 'actus rea' alone is often swept under the rug with a slap on the wrist, unless the plaintiff proves substantial damages from the act itself. That qualifier can make it a criminal act even without the 'mens rea'. I agree, there is a lot of nuance to tease out in such a legal concept. My retort to the other commentator was more that if you are going to say something is a bad idea, you have to put forth why and not just put forth rhetoric! But, once again, I wholeheartedly agree with your examples. I couldn't call for a law that compels the truth. Just something that prevents false publication with the intent to deceive people that it is real for the purposes of malice or ill-gotten self-gain.

by AdamSC1 10y ago

inimino 10y ago

I think before seriously proposing a new law, you should think deeply and long about, at least: - how exactly the law will be phrased - how exactly the law will be enforced - what the penalties shall be - all the ways you can reasonably anticipate that the law may be misused, whether obvious or subtle After all that thinking is finished, do a review of the history of laws that are similar to the one that you have proposed and see where and when such laws have existed and how they have worked out in practice. If, after doing all of that, you still support your original proposal, I will be very much taken aback.

AdamSC1 10y ago
You put forth that a statement was a dangerous idea. When asked why you can't simply state that you believe things should be thought about "deeply and long". That is not a necessary and sufficient condition for things being a "rather dangerous idea." Let's look at your logic for a second: 1) From the get go you're off with a form of an appeal to a stone (argumentum ad lapidem.) You've suggest that a conclusion is absurd (or in this case dangerous) without any statements as to why or how. 2) You've got an irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi) where in you've assumed prima facie that any proposal of a law that does not meet your list of criteria must ultimately be false regardless of its content. (Don't judge a book by its cover?) 3) When asked for why you've shifted the burden of proof (onus probandi) by instead of trying to state why you believe it is false, telling me that if I go research I will most likely change my position. 4) Finally you make an appeal to emotion (in the form of ab absurdo) in suggesting that your conclusion is so simply logical that you would be taken aback if after following your steps I don't believe the same as you. Thus belittling the original argument. None of this takes into account the fact that it is clear I was not proposing a full new law, nor that your steps would prevent there from being any origin point or idea from which a new law can be born. I readily welcome feedback on my thoughts, I think the ability to create a dialogue around ideas is crucial. We only grow and craft better ideas when we make mistakes and people point them out. My original statement on the law was brash and fully born from emotion, and in its simple one-sentence state it absolutely is filled with problematic generalizations. I welcome feedback on that, and am happy to dialogue about it. But, if you believe something to be wrong, or off, or dangerous then engage in an open dialogue about it. When society shuns away from discussions and usurps their idea as 'better' or 'right' with no substantiation because the other person is 'dumb' or 'wrong' or 'evil' or 'uneducated' that is when we reach an impasse where no one wants to listen to people who don't share their ideals. We polarize one another and that leads to animosity and distrust that drives a wedge further between us. You are right that a one-sentence law about publishing false information would be highly dangerous, but, if you're going to call people out about it online, at least state why you believe that and have an open discussion about it. We'll all be better off for it.
- inimino 10y ago
  You've made a category error. My indirect suggestion that one should think more deeply before proposing a law was not intended as an argument. It was intended to prompt you to think more deeply. Do not feel I am attacking you. I simply believe that you have experienced the "there oughtta be a law" emotional reflex to an unpleasant situation and that on further reflection you will realize that that actually won't work well.

nostrademons 10y ago

Probably-not-hypothetical case: Tensions rise with Russia over Ukraine/Syria/Baltics/Eastern Europe/etc. The Pentagon draws up contingency plans for responding to an armed conflict in any one of those areas. When questioned by a reporter, the White House responds "We have no plans to go to war with Russia." Should the White House Press Secretary go to jail? I sympathize with the information-libertarian position that holds that all information should be free, truthful, & accessible to everyone. But there's a really big pragmatic problem in that when individual soundbites are pulled out and shared, they lose context. People don't understand the circumstances behind the facts, and they bring all of their own prejudices and emotions along. Oftentimes, reporting the truth brings about a worse outcome (in some cases, a disastrous outcome) than lying to the public. It's not just the government either - corporations, institutions, and individuals lie all the time too, and often for good reasons. I was a Google employee when the Nexus line was under development, and I knew that the official press statement of "We are not and have no plans to develop a phone" was false. The reason for it was that if news of the Nexus line leaked, it would've jeopardized supplier relationships such that there wouldn't be a phone. In some cases you can actually get into logical paradoxes where a statement is true only if everyone believes that it is false and vice versa.

AdamSC1 10y ago
I can entirely concede the case for secrecy in these situations. Obviously, my statement is not a full proposal for a specific law, but rather a starting point. There is certainly a level of nuance (as there is with all laws), but, I think it comes down to the difference between publishing content you know to be false for matters of personal gain, manipulation, malice, etc. To be a practical law it would need some sort of clause akin to separate the 'actus rea' from the 'mens rea' as well as the impact. Consider cases in libel. The 'actus rea' (the actual act of committing libel) and saying something defamatory about someone that you believe to be true, is different than the libel which has the 'mens rea' (forethought of the action) in which you made claims you knew to be false but did so for a negative impact against someone else. The 'actus rea' alone is often swept under the rug with a slap on the wrist, unless the plaintiff proves substantial damages from the act itself. That qualifier can make it a criminal act even without the 'mens rea'. I agree, there is a lot of nuance to tease out in such a legal concept. My retort to the other commentator was more that if you are going to say something is a bad idea, you have to put forth why and not just put forth rhetoric! But, once again, I wholeheartedly agree with your examples. I couldn't call for a law that compels the truth. Just something that prevents false publication with the intent to deceive people that it is real for the purposes of malice or ill-gotten self-gain.