3 ms·
The problem is that if you already have a dictatorship, or something approaching it, "disinformation" means, in the eyes of the law as it is applied, informatio
by DFHippie 4y ago
The problem is that if you already have a dictatorship, or something approaching it, "disinformation" means, in the eyes of the law as it is applied, information counter to the ruling party's interest.
I agree that disinformation, real disinformation, is being used as a tool to spread authoritarianism and we need better means to combat it. This law, I am afraid, is double speak. It purports to oppose disinformation but in fact strengthens it, and this is by design.
- nashashmi 4y agoEverything is in the eyes of the law. Porn is in the eyes of the law too. As is violent speech and terrorism. We steer clear of laws that are dubious and ambiguous because they can be leveraged whimsically or loopholed. But ignoring threats to full democracy (disinformation) is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous.
- potatototoo99 4y agoFull democracy needs allowing people to think for themselves and spread their ideas freely to whoever will listen. Full democracy is not compatible with telling people what to think.
- nashashmi 4y agoanti disinformation laws do not prevent people from thinking, nor stop people from spreading ideas.
- DFHippie 4y agoI agree about the danger of disinformation. But writing a law and claiming it combats disinformation is not the same as combatting disinformation. In Russia today you can go to jail for up to 15 years for stating that Russia is at war. Why? According to the ruling powers this is disinformation. It doesn't matter that they are lying and you are telling the truth. What matters is that they decide. My point isn't that there can be no law combatting disinformation but that you cannot take the authorities' claims about their law at face value.