6 ms·

The first amendment has been around for more than 200 years and SCOTUS rulings for as long. At this point any government actor, or private sector entity working

• warinukraine 4y ago
  Do you think that anything at all should be done to fight foreign actor disinformation?
  • jaywalk 4y ago
    This is a strawman argument. We are talking about the US Government censoring the speech of US citizens because they don't like it.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Unlike DeSantis's Stop WOKE law, these documents do not give the government the power to compel social media companies or anybody else to remove posts. This seems like it will hold up against the legal challenges that Stop WOKE failed.
    • freejazz 4y ago
      Which article are you reading?
  • revnode 4y ago
    Yes. Focus on education and providing more information, not suppressing the information you don't like.
    • dctoedt 4y ago
      > Focus on education and providing more information, not suppressing the information you don't like. A: Education is at best only partly-effective as a response — too many malevolent actors follow Steve Bannon's largely-costless strategy of (his literal words) "flood the zone with shit." B: Mass purveyors of disinformation are thieves — they steal the time of people who take seriously the need to figure out what's true when, say, voting. C: It's already established that you don't always get to say whatever TF you feel like without consequence — for example, the Federal Trade Commission goes after people for false advertising, and people have been imprisoned for leaking classified information. (At the zoo with my kids years ago, I saw small monkeys scampering quickly around a set of monkey bars in a giant outdoor cage — they shit and pissed whenever the urge struck them, heedless of where it fell. I get much the same impression from people who get indignant when told that they can't say whatever they want whenever they feel like it.)
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • GauntletWizard 4y ago
    Yes absolutely. The government should be spending a lot of time writing very carefully worded press releases that encourage you to research facts, question their pronouncements, and wording all of their releases with a healthy dose of "I am not certain, but we believe" in order to rebuild the public trust. That will go much farther towards combating misinformation then trying to suppress even outright lies by force.
    • freejazz 4y ago
      It's so funny that you say all this because I do not see where the DHS gets the power to suppress anything??
      • GauntletWizard 4y ago
        The power? Which form of power are you referring to? The power of law? That's very clearly "Nowhere". Taking down Facebook posts is not authorized by law, and is not compatible with the First Amendment (though to be clear: The Bill of Rights does not create or codify our rights; It just enumerates them). It is in executive policy, which should be having repercussions such as prosecution and censure, and it's a failure of our legislative and judicial branches that there's not been such. The power of force? They're literally a federal law enforcement department. They have guns and ammo and the training and experience to use them. They will arrest you if you wink at them funny while trying to board a plane. The power of precedent? They're setting it right now. There were a set of leaked e-mails of government officials getting obsequious replies when asking Facebook for posts to be taken down for "Misinformation". I'm not even against the government pointing out posts that violate Facebook guidelines; I just think they should get the same canned responses that everyone else gets. It does not help that a key campaigning strategy from the sitting president was suppressing an embarrassing story. I would have had some respect if Biden had come out and said "My No-Account son is trying to profit from my name, and I apologize for that". I have no respect for the sitting president nor the previous.
        • freejazz 4y ago
          You are overreacting. The government gave social media companies a list of posts they thought were misinformation.
  • unity1001 4y ago
  • logicalmonster 4y ago
    One of the many question marks with your viewpoint is "How much of what is labeled foreign actor disinformation is actually foreign actor disinformation?" During much of the last few years, heaps of undesirable stories were labeled by the media or big tech as "foreign bot propaganda" with no proof provided, and a large chunk of even the tech-savvy public bought these claims at face value even though there are methods that could be used to largely verify these claims that were never provided. It would be trivial for an authoritarian government to label any inconvenient story as "boosted by foreign bots" and totally manipulate and control the news while pretending to "fight foreign disinformation".
  • BurningFrog 4y ago
    Fighting it with correct information is the classic method.
    • KerrAvon 4y ago
      Doesn't work. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
      • MacsHeadroom 4y ago
        Then we go down with the ship. Liberalism in general never worked before the U.S.A. and has never worked for more than a few decades anywhere else.
        • warinukraine 4y ago
          > Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law Giving up liberalism just because an illiberal country is producing propaganda seems... stupid.
          • MacsHeadroom 4y ago
            Maybe I worded that poorly, but I was advocating for holding onto liberalism (the "ship") even if it seems to be failing us ("going down"). So, I agree.
          • fortuna86 4y ago
            Also liberalism continues to power the most peaceful and prosperous regions in the world. Giving up on it because illiberalism is on the rise is equally as stupid.
      • amadeuspagel 4y ago
        > Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect… The fact that Jonathan Swift was already complaining about this in 1710, should make us more skeptical of the idea that the internet or social media is this unique threat, that older ideas about freedom of speech don't apply anymore.
  • from 4y ago
    Why is it the federal governments job? Platforms were already removing actual calls to violence and terrorist propaganda in 2014, what happened was that since 2016 a whole new censorship apparatus was created that was substantially broader than anything seen before not due to new regulations (first amendments is still here) but various extrajudicial mechanisms including senate hearings, “friendly” knocks from DHS agents and the whole 9 yards. Daniel Ellsberg today would be Russian misinformation for saying that America had been bombing Cambodia too.
  • amadeuspagel 4y ago
    I reject that framing. I reject the idea that there this clearly defined thing - disinformation - and the question is how to fight it. The right framing is: How do we figure out the truth? By letting everyone argue about it, on platforms like twitter, or by entrusting that to a bunch of bureaucrats, who then share their findings and censor anyone who disagrees?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• slg 4y ago
  >should be facing years in prison and brutal fines for even suggesting I love the irony of this statement. You are such an advocate of free speech that you believe suggesting alterations to free speech should be punishable by prison time. Free speech is so important that we must restrict speech to protect free speech.
  • goatcode 4y ago
    "At this point any GOVERNMENT ACTOR, or private sector entity WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT..." You missed that part. The Bill of Rights is (or at least was) a list of things the Government can't do.
  • kelnos 4y ago
    Isn't that just a variation on the paradox of tolerance, though? If we tolerate government entities pushing ideas to restrict the speech of citizens, we are going to lose our freedom of speech.
  • peteradio 4y ago
    It's not ironic, you are twisting words. They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence?
    • slg 4y ago
      >They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. Who do you think makes up these "specific set of entities" if not "individual citizens"? >If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence? But OP didn't say the trigger for consequences would be the violation of civil rights. They said that the suggestion was enough to deserve a punishment. They want the speech punished, not action.
• freejazz 4y ago
  Where is prior restraint being suggested?
  • wang_li 4y ago
    It's not just a suggestion. During the pandemic multiple government agencies worked with social media services to remove content that was not in line with official statements and ban people who made such posts/comments. Psaki actually admitted it in July 2021.
    • freejazz 4y ago
      There is no law that gives the government power to restrain speech. Where do you see the government restraining speech?
      • wang_li 4y ago
        >There is no law that gives the government power to restrain speech. All government actors are subject to the constitution and criminal and civil statutes. If they violate them, they can be charged even in the absence of a statute that says they can commit said violation. See Derek Chauvin and the other officers who recently were convicted of violating George Floyd's civil rights. >Where do you see the government restraining speech? When they arranged a contact at social media giants to whom they can report content to be removed.
        • freejazz 4y ago
          >When they arranged a contact at social media giants to whom they can report content to be removed. What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The government has long identified speech it disagrees with and I'm really hard pressed to believe you think this is something the government can't do? >All government actors are subject to the constitution and criminal and civil statutes. If they violate them, they can be charged even in the absence of a statute that says they can commit said violation. See Derek Chauvin and the other officers who recently were convicted of violating George Floyd's civil rights. Oh, I thought you were saying this empowers them to.