5 ms·

I think this attitude is wrong. A strong democracy doesn't need to fight "fake news" legally and doesn't need their own propaganda op in foreign states like Rad

I think this attitude is wrong. A strong democracy doesn't need to fight "fake news" legally and doesn't need their own propaganda op in foreign states like Radio Free Asia etc. If you are banning foreign media in your own country, you are doing the same as China in the end. Why not establish a great firewall?

xcrunner529 4y ago
[dead]
collaborative 4y ago
A strong democracy does as it pleases within its democratic laws
gonehome 4y ago
Do you think the USG would have allowed the USSR to buy NBC? These aren’t new issues, there are certain types of corporations where there is a national security interest in American ownership and capability (see also: Intel). Ownership of airlines is another example, you can’t have a foreign controlling interest in a domestic airline (Richard Branson couldn’t save Virgin America due to this). There are good reasons for a nation to have rules about foreign control in certain types of companies that carry a national security risk.
- caf 4y ago
  In the case of airlines it is just straight up protectionism. There's no national security risk there: if push came to shove in time of war the government could simply seize the assets and operate them as they saw fit.
  - creato 4y ago
    If that’s your view, then it seems better to be up front about the ownership limitations than pretending otherwise until a war comes along and pulling the rug.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      It is already law in the United States that companies may be compelled to act in certain ways during emergencies. There is no pretending, it's all there in plain writing in the USC. Look up the Defence Production Act.
nanidin 4y ago
A well informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy. Fake news and undue outside influence absolutely must be protected against.
- i-use-nixos-btw 4y ago
  A well-informed electorate isn’t a prerequisite to democracy. This is precisely why fake news proliferates - it’s relatively easy to elicit an emotional response, and that tends to win over critical thinking. While fake news and undue outside influence absolutely must be protected against, the line is hard to draw. For instance, would Snowden have been considered undue influence, would Wikileaks have been considered fake news, at least sufficiently enough to cross the ban threshold? There are pros and cons to both approaches, and it really doesn’t come down to whether or not people agree with a statement that contains such vague terms. It comes down to interpretation of those terms.
- mistermann 4y ago
  The government is free to add philosophy to standard curriculum so people aren't so helpless. It's funny it's not there already, with all the talk of the "need" for more critical thinking. Democracy theatre.
subpixel 4y ago
We are starting from a place of weak democracy. I don’t think the tea leaves can be read otherwise. We aren’t alone - but that’s not much succor.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
The United States does not have a strong democracy. Half (more or less) of the population believes the election was rigged.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The United States does not have a strong democracy. Half (more or less) of the population believes the election was rigged. From various recent polls, it looks like somewhere between 30-40%, somewhere under 2/3 of Republicans and Republican-leaners and basically no one else.
  - soderfoo 4y ago
    30% is about par for the course when it comes to contemporary controversial POTUS elections [1][2]. It seems to ebb and flow: each side takes their turn being the aggrieved party and then alternate next go around (2000, 2016, 2020). Consecutive cycles of animosity on one side could be worrying. The tapestry of dysfunctional patchwork that make up the American Constitutional Republic, while tattered and frayed before, has found ways to persist. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2000/12/01/many-question-bush-or-gore-as-legitimate-winner/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2000/12/01/many-questio... [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/seven-americans-accept-bush-legitimate-president.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/seven-americans-accept-bus...
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      > Consecutive cycles of animosity on one side could be worrying. Is that not what we're experiencing now? It's hard to 'both sides' this issue with a straight face, when the biggest election denier in America is a former president and current presidential candidate. When was the last time that happened?
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > It’s hard to ‘both sides’ this issue with a straight face, when the biggest election denier in America is a former president and current presidential candidate. When was the last time that happened? The closest parallel was probably Aaron Burr and his…whatever exactly he was trying to achieve in 1806-1807 in the Southwest after being dumped as VP in 1804 in part resulting from Jefferson’s suspicions that he was trying to pull electoral shenanigans in 1800. But that’s a long time ago, in very different circumstances, and not a particularly close parallel. So, never anything really similar.
jsdeveloper 4y ago
> A strong democracy doesn't need to fight "fake news" legally and doesn't need their own propaganda your argument to me sounded like : > Brave people don't fear heights, you are brave and hence you should jump from empire state building. And you don't need protection, remember you are brave.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Since you are straw manning the argument, brave people should be protected from their foolishness by banning rock climbing and base jumping. How does that sound?
  - jsdeveloper 4y ago
    Your analogy is again flawed. Brave people are not banned, they are free to do rock climbing and base jumping. A specific unrelaible/untrusted tool and equipment they use for adventure is banned. You are arguing as if people are banned. But they are not.
satvikpendem 4y ago
This is the Paradox of Tolerance in action. One must fight against intolerance in order to preserve their tolerant ideals in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- stametseater 4y ago
  Of course the clear meaning of this paradox is that everybody who disagrees with me is intolerant of me, therefore it is my moral imperative to be intolerant to everybody I oppose. /s Or here's a better idea: The Golden Rule. Eye for an eye is how you run a war, not a civil society.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    That doesn't always work so well. If some Viking expedition is coming to pillage your "civil society," for example, there's really not much you can do except to fight. Of course, you can decide who to support or oppose as your moral imperative, but don't be surprised if it has negative consequences to you.
    - stametseater 4y ago
      If a war comes to you, then you've got to fight a war and an eye for an eye is the way to do that. But that's no principle on which to organize a civil society.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  America used the Paradox of Tolerance to outlaw left wing parties during the Cold War and WWI. It has a really nasty history. It’s not common for tolerant societies to descend into despotism. Liberal deco meadows are very resilient. Allowing intolerance is usually better than systematic political suppression.
pyuser583 4y ago
Hasn’t America traditionally regulated foreign press ownership? It’s not like we would let the Soviets, Nazis, British, Prussians, etc just buy the New York Times. And non-news media has been protectionist too. We allow foreign news distribution - but there are limits.

xcrunner529 4y ago

[dead]

collaborative 4y ago

A strong democracy does as it pleases within its democratic laws

gonehome 4y ago

Do you think the USG would have allowed the USSR to buy NBC? These aren’t new issues, there are certain types of corporations where there is a national security interest in American ownership and capability (see also: Intel). Ownership of airlines is another example, you can’t have a foreign controlling interest in a domestic airline (Richard Branson couldn’t save Virgin America due to this). There are good reasons for a nation to have rules about foreign control in certain types of companies that carry a national security risk.

caf 4y ago
In the case of airlines it is just straight up protectionism. There's no national security risk there: if push came to shove in time of war the government could simply seize the assets and operate them as they saw fit.
- creato 4y ago
  If that’s your view, then it seems better to be up front about the ownership limitations than pretending otherwise until a war comes along and pulling the rug.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    It is already law in the United States that companies may be compelled to act in certain ways during emergencies. There is no pretending, it's all there in plain writing in the USC. Look up the Defence Production Act.

nanidin 4y ago

A well informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy. Fake news and undue outside influence absolutely must be protected against.

i-use-nixos-btw 4y ago
A well-informed electorate isn’t a prerequisite to democracy. This is precisely why fake news proliferates - it’s relatively easy to elicit an emotional response, and that tends to win over critical thinking. While fake news and undue outside influence absolutely must be protected against, the line is hard to draw. For instance, would Snowden have been considered undue influence, would Wikileaks have been considered fake news, at least sufficiently enough to cross the ban threshold? There are pros and cons to both approaches, and it really doesn’t come down to whether or not people agree with a statement that contains such vague terms. It comes down to interpretation of those terms.
mistermann 4y ago
The government is free to add philosophy to standard curriculum so people aren't so helpless. It's funny it's not there already, with all the talk of the "need" for more critical thinking. Democracy theatre.

subpixel 4y ago

We are starting from a place of weak democracy. I don’t think the tea leaves can be read otherwise. We aren’t alone - but that’s not much succor.

shepherdjerred 4y ago

The United States does not have a strong democracy. Half (more or less) of the population believes the election was rigged.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The United States does not have a strong democracy. Half (more or less) of the population believes the election was rigged. From various recent polls, it looks like somewhere between 30-40%, somewhere under 2/3 of Republicans and Republican-leaners and basically no one else.
- soderfoo 4y ago
  30% is about par for the course when it comes to contemporary controversial POTUS elections [1][2]. It seems to ebb and flow: each side takes their turn being the aggrieved party and then alternate next go around (2000, 2016, 2020). Consecutive cycles of animosity on one side could be worrying. The tapestry of dysfunctional patchwork that make up the American Constitutional Republic, while tattered and frayed before, has found ways to persist. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2000/12/01/many-question-bush-or-gore-as-legitimate-winner/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2000/12/01/many-questio... [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/seven-americans-accept-bush-legitimate-president.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/seven-americans-accept-bus...
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > Consecutive cycles of animosity on one side could be worrying. Is that not what we're experiencing now? It's hard to 'both sides' this issue with a straight face, when the biggest election denier in America is a former president and current presidential candidate. When was the last time that happened?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > It’s hard to ‘both sides’ this issue with a straight face, when the biggest election denier in America is a former president and current presidential candidate. When was the last time that happened? The closest parallel was probably Aaron Burr and his…whatever exactly he was trying to achieve in 1806-1807 in the Southwest after being dumped as VP in 1804 in part resulting from Jefferson’s suspicions that he was trying to pull electoral shenanigans in 1800. But that’s a long time ago, in very different circumstances, and not a particularly close parallel. So, never anything really similar.

jsdeveloper 4y ago

> A strong democracy doesn't need to fight "fake news" legally and doesn't need their own propaganda your argument to me sounded like : > Brave people don't fear heights, you are brave and hence you should jump from empire state building. And you don't need protection, remember you are brave.

goatlover 4y ago
Since you are straw manning the argument, brave people should be protected from their foolishness by banning rock climbing and base jumping. How does that sound?
- jsdeveloper 4y ago
  Your analogy is again flawed. Brave people are not banned, they are free to do rock climbing and base jumping. A specific unrelaible/untrusted tool and equipment they use for adventure is banned. You are arguing as if people are banned. But they are not.

satvikpendem 4y ago

This is the Paradox of Tolerance in action. One must fight against intolerance in order to preserve their tolerant ideals in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

stametseater 4y ago
Of course the clear meaning of this paradox is that everybody who disagrees with me is intolerant of me, therefore it is my moral imperative to be intolerant to everybody I oppose. /s Or here's a better idea: The Golden Rule. Eye for an eye is how you run a war, not a civil society.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  That doesn't always work so well. If some Viking expedition is coming to pillage your "civil society," for example, there's really not much you can do except to fight. Of course, you can decide who to support or oppose as your moral imperative, but don't be surprised if it has negative consequences to you.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    If a war comes to you, then you've got to fight a war and an eye for an eye is the way to do that. But that's no principle on which to organize a civil society.
pyuser583 4y ago
America used the Paradox of Tolerance to outlaw left wing parties during the Cold War and WWI. It has a really nasty history. It’s not common for tolerant societies to descend into despotism. Liberal deco meadows are very resilient. Allowing intolerance is usually better than systematic political suppression.

pyuser583 4y ago

Hasn’t America traditionally regulated foreign press ownership? It’s not like we would let the Soviets, Nazis, British, Prussians, etc just buy the New York Times. And non-news media has been protectionist too. We allow foreign news distribution - but there are limits.