12 ms·

Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of your political ideas? You want a central authority to ban the spread of "blatantly false" ideas tha

Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of your political ideas? You want a central authority to ban the spread of "blatantly false" ideas that you fear may cause plebians to vote the wrong way, yet you support affording plebians with the full right to vote? Would it not be simpler to bans plebians from voting, and therefore remove your worry entirely that they may vote the wrong way when hearing "blatantly false" ideas?

lordnacho 7y ago
It doesn't have to be the same authority. You could have an independent ombudsman.
- balt_s 7y ago
  This is laughable; as well say "you could have an independent ruler".
- peterhadlaw 7y ago
  Factcheck.net.fact.org/really-real is not that. I don't get why people can just take their own responsibility for themselves? Give users the tools to filter out the nonsense that floods most of the internet. There's no need for moral arbiters to decide for us what's "true" and "false". We've existed long enough without them, I think we can make it a little longer still.
CydeWeys 7y ago
We are being attacked with foreign propaganda by our long-term enemies. They are succeeding in destroying our position on the world stage. It's not something that can be turned a blind eye to under the guise of free speech (which it isn't).
- malvosenior 7y ago
  All governments push propaganda. Russia's miniscule ad spend on FB had no measurable effect (please provide proof if you think this is wrong). Clinton and Trump spent many order of magnitude more on political advertising than any foreign nation and even that didn't assure their win. People aren't mindless robots, they vote for who they want to vote for.
  - peterhadlaw 7y ago
    The funniest thing is, no one talks about this, but if the "goal" was to sew discord... My goodness someone "in the Kremlin" should be getting a promotion for their exceptionally well done job. I mean how many YEARS and millions of dollars has the US wasted chasing after this ghost of Russian interference? If you want to calculate the ROI from a few thousand dollars to how much hysteria followed suit, it's insane. The only question I have is, can anyone seriously take credit for it in Russia with a straight face. "No comrade, I only made meme of Hillary... The whole Mueller thing was the US all on its own."
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Correct, this never had anything to do with Russia and it has everything to do with Trump. The political and media establishment couldn't handle an outsider winning the presidency so it was they that have gone full blast on propaganda for the past 3 years.
  - willis936 7y ago
    That is a naively optimistic statement. If marketing didn’t work then billions wouldn’t be spent on it.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Yet it was Clinton who spent far more than anyone on marketing and Russia spent pretty much nothing. Only here we are talking about the impact "Russia" had and ignoring that the tens of millions Clinton spent didn't accomplish her goal.
      - willis936 7y ago
        And this somehow isn’t evidence of the effectiveness of undisclosed campaigns based around lies presented as truth? All Clinton did wrong was not involve foreign governments to operate guerrilla smear campaigns. Oh wait. That isn’t wrong. What are you arguing in favor of again?
- chrischen 7y ago
  You sound like the Chinese government.
- pbreit 7y ago
  Are they really a long time enemy? They were a core ally in the 40s. We operate a space station together. Did they really “attack” us by purchasing a few ads supporting the candidate most of us (outside California) voted for? It’s an extremely difficult argument that Russia had an impact on election.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    The points you’ve made are cherry-picked. The USSR was an ally in the early 40s during WWII, but for the next half century we were staunch enemies who waged numerous proxy wars. We operate the ISS together, along with Japan, Canada and Europe. “Most of us” voted for Trump if you selectively ignore over 10% of the votes cast.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    I'd suggest studying up on the Cold War, as you're not giving it nearly the weight it is due. The world almost ended several times over it; that's a lot more meaningful than operating a token space station together. And WWII was more of an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of situation. We put up with each other because we needed each other to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, but the second the war ended we turned on each other as main enemies. In truth, Russia has not been friendly to the west since the Communist revolution that occurred during the first World War.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of yours? Laws against defamation are exactly intended to prevent the spread of false ideas. Why not remove them, and let the plebeians figure things out themselves?
- sparrish 7y ago
  No, defamation laws are to protect someone who is defamed (unjustly harms their reputation, and usually constitutes a tort or a crime). They are not intended to protect you from false ideas. Can you sue for defamation if I publish an essay saying there are aliens on Pluto? Is it false? Yes. Has it defamed anyone? No.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Yes, any suit must be brought on behalf of someone who was damaged. “Defamation” is the word for someone being damaged by false ideas.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lordnacho 7y ago

It doesn't have to be the same authority. You could have an independent ombudsman.

balt_s 7y ago
This is laughable; as well say "you could have an independent ruler".
peterhadlaw 7y ago
Factcheck.net.fact.org/really-real is not that. I don't get why people can just take their own responsibility for themselves? Give users the tools to filter out the nonsense that floods most of the internet. There's no need for moral arbiters to decide for us what's "true" and "false". We've existed long enough without them, I think we can make it a little longer still.

CydeWeys 7y ago

We are being attacked with foreign propaganda by our long-term enemies. They are succeeding in destroying our position on the world stage. It's not something that can be turned a blind eye to under the guise of free speech (which it isn't).

malvosenior 7y ago
All governments push propaganda. Russia's miniscule ad spend on FB had no measurable effect (please provide proof if you think this is wrong). Clinton and Trump spent many order of magnitude more on political advertising than any foreign nation and even that didn't assure their win. People aren't mindless robots, they vote for who they want to vote for.
- peterhadlaw 7y ago
  The funniest thing is, no one talks about this, but if the "goal" was to sew discord... My goodness someone "in the Kremlin" should be getting a promotion for their exceptionally well done job. I mean how many YEARS and millions of dollars has the US wasted chasing after this ghost of Russian interference? If you want to calculate the ROI from a few thousand dollars to how much hysteria followed suit, it's insane. The only question I have is, can anyone seriously take credit for it in Russia with a straight face. "No comrade, I only made meme of Hillary... The whole Mueller thing was the US all on its own."
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Correct, this never had anything to do with Russia and it has everything to do with Trump. The political and media establishment couldn't handle an outsider winning the presidency so it was they that have gone full blast on propaganda for the past 3 years.
- willis936 7y ago
  That is a naively optimistic statement. If marketing didn’t work then billions wouldn’t be spent on it.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Yet it was Clinton who spent far more than anyone on marketing and Russia spent pretty much nothing. Only here we are talking about the impact "Russia" had and ignoring that the tens of millions Clinton spent didn't accomplish her goal.
    - willis936 7y ago
      And this somehow isn’t evidence of the effectiveness of undisclosed campaigns based around lies presented as truth? All Clinton did wrong was not involve foreign governments to operate guerrilla smear campaigns. Oh wait. That isn’t wrong. What are you arguing in favor of again?
chrischen 7y ago
You sound like the Chinese government.
pbreit 7y ago
Are they really a long time enemy? They were a core ally in the 40s. We operate a space station together. Did they really “attack” us by purchasing a few ads supporting the candidate most of us (outside California) voted for? It’s an extremely difficult argument that Russia had an impact on election.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  The points you’ve made are cherry-picked. The USSR was an ally in the early 40s during WWII, but for the next half century we were staunch enemies who waged numerous proxy wars. We operate the ISS together, along with Japan, Canada and Europe. “Most of us” voted for Trump if you selectively ignore over 10% of the votes cast.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  I'd suggest studying up on the Cold War, as you're not giving it nearly the weight it is due. The world almost ended several times over it; that's a lot more meaningful than operating a token space station together. And WWII was more of an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of situation. We put up with each other because we needed each other to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, but the second the war ended we turned on each other as main enemies. In truth, Russia has not been friendly to the west since the Communist revolution that occurred during the first World War.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of yours? Laws against defamation are exactly intended to prevent the spread of false ideas. Why not remove them, and let the plebeians figure things out themselves?

sparrish 7y ago
No, defamation laws are to protect someone who is defamed (unjustly harms their reputation, and usually constitutes a tort or a crime). They are not intended to protect you from false ideas. Can you sue for defamation if I publish an essay saying there are aliens on Pluto? Is it false? Yes. Has it defamed anyone? No.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Yes, any suit must be brought on behalf of someone who was damaged. “Defamation” is the word for someone being damaged by false ideas.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]