4 ms·
You seem to be saying that if the government characterizes X as misinformation that is killing people, that is a "pretty clear threat that they are looking to r
by _23sd 4y ago
You seem to be saying that if the government characterizes X as misinformation that is killing people, that is a "pretty clear threat that they are looking to regulate you". If that's accurate, how is the framing of "We believe X is misinformation, do with that advice what you will" versus "We believe X is misinformation, and if you don't act on that, we will penalize you in some way" valid at all? Wouldn't the first statement always be equivalent to the second one?
- naasking 4y ago"Killing people" is a pretty important distinction don't you think? Is the government not in the business of protecting the public? If there's a threat to the public, doesn't the government typically intervene? So no, those two statements are not equivalent, but if you add that additional qualifier that the misinformation is killing people, that becomes a much more serious charge which then implies intervention is a likely outcome.