5 ms·

"Censoring" literal misinformation is a bad thing now?

by IntelMiner 2y ago

ImJamal 2y ago
It is. What you think is truth today can easily be considered misinformation tomorrow.
- 1270018080 2y ago
  I know in the post-truth era everyone can pretend their bubble is fact, but come on. Some things actually are misinformation.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Sure, somethings are actually misinformation. Nobody is denying that. The problem is giving the government the ability to determine what is and isn't misinformation. If [politican you don't like] had the power to consider his misinformation to be truthful and truthful information to be misinformation would you still be in support of this? He could supress all the negative information about him calling it misinformation and prevent his misinformation from being banned.
    - IntelMiner 2y ago
      So what happens when misinformation is posted and the corporation won't act to remove it? In twitter's case, what happens when the corporation actively works to avoid accountability for it?
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        Nothing negative should happen to the company. In an ideal world the company should be lauded by everybody who values free speech for not bowing down to government censorship. The politicans supporting censorship should be voted out and the government should pay back any money it took in fines with interest. Those in the company who stood up for free speech should be given a medal by the new government. Of course, we live in a society which loves censorship and hates free speech. Given the hatred of free speech we are seeing in this thread, I am guessing the ideal situation won't happen anytime soon.
        IntelMiner 2y ago
        That's a very American view of "free speech"
        ImJamal 2y ago
        It is also the view of the Brazilians? This is from their constitution: > Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden. They seem to be quite explicit and make no exemption for misinformation.
    - 1270018080 2y ago
      The misinformation and regulation dodging is happening right now, and the functioning Brazilian government is taking steps to stop it. So we should just be happy with the small win as a citizens of the world. > If [politican you don't like] had the power to consider his misinformation to be truthful and truthful information to be misinformation would you still be in support of this? If an evil person is trying to rewrite reality from their position of power, you'd hope the checks and balances in the government prevent them from doing so. While the Brazilian government can stop misinformation from spreading, they can also allow real information to continue to spread. But if we go down this reductive doomsday scenario all the way to the bottom, where there are evil people stacked from top to bottom, your nation failed a long time ago. And maybe part of the blame sits on the people preaching do-nothingness and requiring a perfect system of laws and governance before taking action.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        The constitution of Brazil explicitly protects political speech and makes no mention of exempting misinformation. > Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden. We should not be happy seeing a judge going after free speech that is explicitly protected by the constitution. This is a loss for the citizens of Brazil, not a win.
johndevor 2y ago
Putting "literal" in front of a word does not clarify the definition of that word.
- IntelMiner 2y ago
  https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-company-refuses-comply-judge/ https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-c... Brazil's judge lays it out quite reasonably?
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    I don't see any explanation in that article about what illegal "literal misinformation" Musk is allowing on X, so no it's not very reasonable.
    - IntelMiner 2y ago
      Apologies, it was a link from another article (hooray posting while on mobile!) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o >The row began in April, with the judge ordering the suspension of dozens of X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation. >Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation - many supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.
      - HideousKojima 2y ago
        Still not seeing any explanation of what the supposed "literal misinformation" was in that article either.
        IntelMiner 2y ago
        "Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation" Not sure how I can make it any clearer for you than that. Surely if they're innocent then the accounts can simply be reinstated?
HideousKojima 2y ago
Yes, because who gets to decide what is or is not misinformation?
- Emiledel 2y ago
  I feel for your pain, and I'm interested in paths that overcome the collapse of trust we're going through. I think your question matters a lot, to reach solutions all of us need (and not quit until we find a positive one)
- nathanaldensr 2y ago
  Essentially, the larger the scope/influence is of the body of people deciding what speech to censor, the more dangerous it is to give them that power. This is irrespective of the actual information being censored.
matheusmoreira 2y ago
Misinformation... According to whom? You? These partisan judge-kings? Politicians who lie pathologically? So who gets the honor of being the ministry of truth?
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    There goes good faith. For the record, I don't really support that coward. I had all but forgotten about his existence until you posted this reply. My opinion of him is the only thing he's got going for him is the fact he's not a socialist, and that this alone makes him better than Lula or any of his communists any day of the week. Make no mistake: this is very faint praise. Being better than literal socialists and communists is a very low bar to clear.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      I live how right-wing guys would call any of their opponent a “communist”, even Joe Bidden got called a socialist by some republicans… Believe it or not, but social democracy based on welfare state (which has nothing to do with Communism) is the only thing that works. (And ironically that what defeated the communist ideology). The fact that its opponents have to conflate it with Communism as their only argument shows all that needs to be about their reasoning.
      - matheusmoreira 2y ago
        ... Except I'm not calling Joe Biden a communist. I'm calling Lula a communist. He calls himself one. As does the judge he appointed to the supreme court. They even cheered when it happened: "finally we have a communist in the supreme court". Are you actually claiming that these people are not socialists? I don't even need to discuss their obviously socialist ideologies. There is no need to interpret veiled implications, no need to make any inferences. They straight up use these words to describe themselves. Are you seriously going to contradict their own words on the matter? If we cannot find common on ground on even such basic facts, then there's no point in any further discussion. Peace out.

"Censoring" literal misinformation is a bad thing now?

ImJamal 2y ago

It is. What you think is truth today can easily be considered misinformation tomorrow.

1270018080 2y ago
I know in the post-truth era everyone can pretend their bubble is fact, but come on. Some things actually are misinformation.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Sure, somethings are actually misinformation. Nobody is denying that. The problem is giving the government the ability to determine what is and isn't misinformation. If [politican you don't like] had the power to consider his misinformation to be truthful and truthful information to be misinformation would you still be in support of this? He could supress all the negative information about him calling it misinformation and prevent his misinformation from being banned.
  - IntelMiner 2y ago
    So what happens when misinformation is posted and the corporation won't act to remove it? In twitter's case, what happens when the corporation actively works to avoid accountability for it?
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      Nothing negative should happen to the company. In an ideal world the company should be lauded by everybody who values free speech for not bowing down to government censorship. The politicans supporting censorship should be voted out and the government should pay back any money it took in fines with interest. Those in the company who stood up for free speech should be given a medal by the new government. Of course, we live in a society which loves censorship and hates free speech. Given the hatred of free speech we are seeing in this thread, I am guessing the ideal situation won't happen anytime soon.
      - IntelMiner 2y ago
        That's a very American view of "free speech"
        ImJamal 2y ago
        It is also the view of the Brazilians? This is from their constitution: > Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden. They seem to be quite explicit and make no exemption for misinformation.
  - 1270018080 2y ago
    The misinformation and regulation dodging is happening right now, and the functioning Brazilian government is taking steps to stop it. So we should just be happy with the small win as a citizens of the world. > If [politican you don't like] had the power to consider his misinformation to be truthful and truthful information to be misinformation would you still be in support of this? If an evil person is trying to rewrite reality from their position of power, you'd hope the checks and balances in the government prevent them from doing so. While the Brazilian government can stop misinformation from spreading, they can also allow real information to continue to spread. But if we go down this reductive doomsday scenario all the way to the bottom, where there are evil people stacked from top to bottom, your nation failed a long time ago. And maybe part of the blame sits on the people preaching do-nothingness and requiring a perfect system of laws and governance before taking action.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      The constitution of Brazil explicitly protects political speech and makes no mention of exempting misinformation. > Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden. We should not be happy seeing a judge going after free speech that is explicitly protected by the constitution. This is a loss for the citizens of Brazil, not a win.

johndevor 2y ago

Putting "literal" in front of a word does not clarify the definition of that word.

IntelMiner 2y ago
https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-company-refuses-comply-judge/ https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-c... Brazil's judge lays it out quite reasonably?
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  I don't see any explanation in that article about what illegal "literal misinformation" Musk is allowing on X, so no it's not very reasonable.
  - IntelMiner 2y ago
    Apologies, it was a link from another article (hooray posting while on mobile!) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o >The row began in April, with the judge ordering the suspension of dozens of X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation. >Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation - many supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.
    - HideousKojima 2y ago
      Still not seeing any explanation of what the supposed "literal misinformation" was in that article either.
      - IntelMiner 2y ago
        "Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation" Not sure how I can make it any clearer for you than that. Surely if they're innocent then the accounts can simply be reinstated?

HideousKojima 2y ago

Yes, because who gets to decide what is or is not misinformation?

Emiledel 2y ago
I feel for your pain, and I'm interested in paths that overcome the collapse of trust we're going through. I think your question matters a lot, to reach solutions all of us need (and not quit until we find a positive one)
nathanaldensr 2y ago
Essentially, the larger the scope/influence is of the body of people deciding what speech to censor, the more dangerous it is to give them that power. This is irrespective of the actual information being censored.

matheusmoreira 2y ago

Misinformation... According to whom? You? These partisan judge-kings? Politicians who lie pathologically? So who gets the honor of being the ministry of truth?

littlestymaar 2y ago
[flagged]
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  There goes good faith. For the record, I don't really support that coward. I had all but forgotten about his existence until you posted this reply. My opinion of him is the only thing he's got going for him is the fact he's not a socialist, and that this alone makes him better than Lula or any of his communists any day of the week. Make no mistake: this is very faint praise. Being better than literal socialists and communists is a very low bar to clear.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    I live how right-wing guys would call any of their opponent a “communist”, even Joe Bidden got called a socialist by some republicans… Believe it or not, but social democracy based on welfare state (which has nothing to do with Communism) is the only thing that works. (And ironically that what defeated the communist ideology). The fact that its opponents have to conflate it with Communism as their only argument shows all that needs to be about their reasoning.
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      ... Except I'm not calling Joe Biden a communist. I'm calling Lula a communist. He calls himself one. As does the judge he appointed to the supreme court. They even cheered when it happened: "finally we have a communist in the supreme court". Are you actually claiming that these people are not socialists? I don't even need to discuss their obviously socialist ideologies. There is no need to interpret veiled implications, no need to make any inferences. They straight up use these words to describe themselves. Are you seriously going to contradict their own words on the matter? If we cannot find common on ground on even such basic facts, then there's no point in any further discussion. Peace out.