3 ms·

I really don't get it. There was a massive wave of misinformation during covid-19 that contributed to the USA having the worst mortality count of any country.

by cowpig 3y ago

I really don't get it. There was a massive wave of misinformation during covid-19 that contributed to the USA having the worst mortality count of any country. A lot of people died. This isn't a case where people thought the wrong things and it made them vote wrong. It caused them to spread diseases to other people and kill them. That's what this court case is about right? I'm shocked that people think this is a case where the government should not step in. I think they should have been much more aggressive.

MightyBuzzard 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwawa14223 3y ago
Why does the state have an interest in what free people choose to talk about?
- acdha 3y ago
  The state has an interest in keeping people alive, and in having people not make decisions which will negatively impact those around them. Someone not taking simple precautions like wearing a mask or getting vaccinated and taking a bed in a full hospital is a legitimate state concern – but a time-limited one, too, which is only compelling during a crisis.
  - Gartent 3y ago
    The state has an interest in forcing people to make the Right Decisions. Thus... who cares about free speech anyway, when it can lead to the Wrong Decisions? But yes, that is one of many Legitimate State Concerns.
melindajb 3y ago
It's sad that you're being downvoted only because you disagreed with the prevailing pov here. for all its talk of being an open exchange of ideas, HN often devolves into exactly the opposite.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sneak 3y ago
If it is legal for the state to aggressively censor what the state deems misinformation in the case of a real crisis, it is similarly legal for the state to aggressively censor true things that the state deems misinformation in the case of a manufactured crisis. That's the issue: we do not trust the state to be impartial enough to decide what is or isn't misinformation. Remember when they lied and told us not to wear masks so they could hoard them for healthcare workers? In that instance if they had been "much more aggressive" as you advocate, saying the true and correct statements of "this is an airborne respiratory virus and you should wear a mask" would be subject to such censorship. Given that we've seen governments carry out all manner of atrocities (eg the US CIA torturing people in the wake of 9/11 for a recent example, or the Third Reich's famous death camps) throughout literally all of human history up to and including present day without exception, by both "good" governments and "the bad guys" (also without exception), why on Earth should we allow such organizations the power to decide with force of law what is or isn't true? A lot more people will die from direct and intentional actions by government than will die from misinformation.

by cowpig 3y ago

MightyBuzzard 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwawa14223 3y ago

Why does the state have an interest in what free people choose to talk about?

acdha 3y ago
The state has an interest in keeping people alive, and in having people not make decisions which will negatively impact those around them. Someone not taking simple precautions like wearing a mask or getting vaccinated and taking a bed in a full hospital is a legitimate state concern – but a time-limited one, too, which is only compelling during a crisis.
- Gartent 3y ago
  The state has an interest in forcing people to make the Right Decisions. Thus... who cares about free speech anyway, when it can lead to the Wrong Decisions? But yes, that is one of many Legitimate State Concerns.

melindajb 3y ago

It's sad that you're being downvoted only because you disagreed with the prevailing pov here. for all its talk of being an open exchange of ideas, HN often devolves into exactly the opposite.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sneak 3y ago

If it is legal for the state to aggressively censor what the state deems misinformation in the case of a real crisis, it is similarly legal for the state to aggressively censor true things that the state deems misinformation in the case of a manufactured crisis. That's the issue: we do not trust the state to be impartial enough to decide what is or isn't misinformation. Remember when they lied and told us not to wear masks so they could hoard them for healthcare workers? In that instance if they had been "much more aggressive" as you advocate, saying the true and correct statements of "this is an airborne respiratory virus and you should wear a mask" would be subject to such censorship. Given that we've seen governments carry out all manner of atrocities (eg the US CIA torturing people in the wake of 9/11 for a recent example, or the Third Reich's famous death camps) throughout literally all of human history up to and including present day without exception, by both "good" governments and "the bad guys" (also without exception), why on Earth should we allow such organizations the power to decide with force of law what is or isn't true? A lot more people will die from direct and intentional actions by government than will die from misinformation.