How would it be possible to catch every post shared with misinformation by every user, whether actually uneducated or purposely wanting to do harm to others?
Per the article, it's specific to algorithms used by social media companies. IMO, it sounds like the liability would kick in if the algorithms are pushing the misinformation across the platform, which is different than an individual user posting misinformation on the platform that requires other users to individually seek it out rather than have it pushed to them.
There is an army of social media trolls pushing that disinformation using any means they can.
If anybody posts anything that doesn't support their agenda, they are out in droves like an army of ants attacking and pushing their agenda.
It’s scary to think there are people who believe the government has the right and ability to decide what is misinformation and what is not. The old “Camel’s nose under the tent” saying comes to mind. What if the government determines, for example, that religious doctrine is misinformation and anti-science regarding abortion, marriage, morality, etc? Could the government fine Facebook for allowing the Bible on its platform? The Bible is at times violent and goes against most of today’s liberal philosophies.
But even the truth can be manipulated. The news media is now reporting about breakthrough infections, side effects, etc. that are being used by the conspiracy theorists to claim the vaccines are useless.
The government cleared that misconception up long ago when somebody yelled misinformation like "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
Why don’t we start with making members of Congress liable for spreading misinformation and obvious lying. Be an example before going after others. Or is it the typical "do as I say not as I do"?
The did remove Majorie Tayler Green from committees to isolate her and her conspiracy theories.
Fox News is who they should go after as a 24x7 source of misinformation. Social media is just a conduit for speech. It is dangerous to limit free speech on social media. Fox News has "news" in the name and there's a presumption that what they say has some semblance of truth.
Oh, but YOUR favorite news sites like CNN, MSNBC, etc. are as pure as the new driven snow when it comes to unbiased reporting. Do you actually believe the tripe you are spewing?
Are they perfect? Of course not! When they report something that isn't true they correct it.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
If you think radicalized militias invading our capitol to put a halt to democracy and 600,000+ dead Americans is acceptable, then I doubt that anything anybody can say can help you.
Yes, it started with foreign "Bad Acters". Now we are dealing with domestic terrorists who have been radicalized largely by the so called "free speech" running rampant on social media. They in fact used social media to organize their last attack on our country.
Fox News is who they should go after as a 24x7 source of misinformation. Social media is just a conduit for speech. It is dangerous to limit free speech on social media. Fox News has "news" in the name and there's a presumption that what they say has some semblance of truth.
LOL. But CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS and the rest of the media literally making things up for four years is OK.
Massive Ditto…
Absolutely.. media, big tech are what need to be put on a leash and held liable for spewing none stop, agenda driven, brainwashing misinformation!
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Fox News is who they should go after as a 24x7 source of misinformation. Social media is just a conduit for speech. It is dangerous to limit free speech on social media. Fox News has "news" in the name and there's a presumption that what they say has some semblance of truth.
LOL. But CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS and the rest of the media literally making things up for four years is OK.
Massive Ditto…
Absolutely.. media, big tech are what need to be put on a leash and held liable for spewing none stop, agenda driven, brainwashing misinformation!
Yeh, they don't spread the conspiracy theory Du Jour or spew right wing propaganda. Shame on them!
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
You don't seem to have put a lot of thought into how this might be tackled, and have instead leapt immediately to a slippery slope of fascism.
Maybe if a conversation was had rather than one side just accusing the other of tyranny then maybe a solution could be found?
For me, it seems like social media companies are already taking aspects of this law to heart with "the content of this post is disputed" type-warnings. I don't think it makes sense to make the companies accountable for user created content as if the company had created it itself, but legislation that makes them responsible for putting in systems to flag content that may be dangerously misleading doesn't seem unfair, with a more appropriate level of penalty. Possibly also a system to flag where the origin of the content are suspicious, or known to be influenced with foreign actors.
Don't censor the content (except in egregious cases), just make sure a fuller scope of information is available.
It's not all that uncommon for some medical, researcher, or situational claim deemed accurate and reliable TODAY to later become "misinformation" when research and discovery shows otherwise. What might be determined to be "misinformation" today can also become truth once more is known. What we see as truth seems to be ever changing. So who would be the arbiter, the intimate authority on what is accurate and what is not? Does mostly true count or only 100%? How about not entirely accurate but containing some degree of truth?
Governments very often do and say what their leaders think is for the "greater good" of their country and if obfuscating the truth or even outright lying in some cases is helpful to the cause so be it. China's leadership lies, Russia's leadership lies, the US and European countries lie too even if IMHO it is to a much lesser degree since a free media tends to prevent it (more often just hiding the truth rather than outright lying). Lying is more of an authoritarian thing where the media can be controlled to.
Well OK then, the ends justify the means according to a couple of members who admire countries with firm control of the message whether true or not. That's your freedom to offer opinion without punishment. We should cherish that.
So now in the US we're going to trust in a fair and non-discriminating "authority" deciding what is misinformation and what is not, and who is punished for it and who is not? We will appoint a person/office or government panel to make the nationwide rules on who is allowed to speak and who is not based on some self-serving criteria? Gotcha. At least we have the freedom as a collection of individuals to chose how we are led every few years. Not every country does.
I see this particular plan destined to become more a political tool instead of a helpful social one, with "misinformation" morphing as the people in charge change.
Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
No, I am (and have been for decades) a registered independent, thank you!
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.livwe
I find it ironic that you would paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes most famous quote, that was made when the SCOTUS unanimously decided that the 1st Amendment did not protect the plaintiff right to distribute flyers opposing the draft (during WW1). A decision that was later partially overturned and is considered by some to be one the worse decision made by the SCOTUS.
Too often the quote is shorten from ".....falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...." to just "yelling FIRE in a crowed theater" .... and "crowded" is added. While the most important part, "...and causing panic.", is not mentioned at all. As to make it appear that "lying" is not protected speech.
Justice Holmes used it as an example that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that there are speech that is not protected under certain circumstances. Like when it's used to created a "panic" or "present a clear and present danger" that the government should protect the public against. But in the case that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against, the "speech" did not cause a panic and was later ruled as "protected speech".
It appeared that the SCOTUS had overstepped their boundaries in many cases, when deciding what "clear and present danger" entails and using as a means to denied a person their 1st Amendment rights. The meer act of spreading "disinformation" is protected speech and "clear and present danger" can be too broadly defined by the government to deny ones 1st Amendment rights or worse .... suppress the truth.
Even the very liberal press "The Atlantic", seems to agree.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
You do realize that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state and vice-versa ....... don't you?
Parties that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".
The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus.
Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death.
What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu.
Comments
Imagine them having to campaign(on the line at any rate) without being able to call their opponents racist, "literally Hitler", etc..
Yeh, they don't spread the conspiracy theory Du Jour or spew right wing propaganda. Shame on them!
Don't worry. The truth always comes out in the end.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
Maybe if a conversation was had rather than one side just accusing the other of tyranny then maybe a solution could be found?
For me, it seems like social media companies are already taking aspects of this law to heart with "the content of this post is disputed" type-warnings. I don't think it makes sense to make the companies accountable for user created content as if the company had created it itself, but legislation that makes them responsible for putting in systems to flag content that may be dangerously misleading doesn't seem unfair, with a more appropriate level of penalty. Possibly also a system to flag where the origin of the content are suspicious, or known to be influenced with foreign actors.
Don't censor the content (except in egregious cases), just make sure a fuller scope of information is available.
Governments very often do and say what their leaders think is for the "greater good" of their country and if obfuscating the truth or even outright lying in some cases is helpful to the cause so be it. China's leadership lies, Russia's leadership lies, the US and European countries lie too even if IMHO it is to a much lesser degree since a free media tends to prevent it (more often just hiding the truth rather than outright lying). Lying is more of an authoritarian thing where the media can be controlled to.
Well OK then, the ends justify the means according to a couple of members who admire countries with firm control of the message whether true or not. That's your freedom to offer opinion without punishment. We should cherish that.
So now in the US we're going to trust in a fair and non-discriminating "authority" deciding what is misinformation and what is not, and who is punished for it and who is not? We will appoint a person/office or government panel to make the nationwide rules on who is allowed to speak and who is not based on some self-serving criteria? Gotcha. At least we have the freedom as a collection of individuals to chose how we are led every few years. Not every country does.
I see this particular plan destined to become more a political tool instead of a helpful social one, with "misinformation" morphing as the people in charge change.
Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
https://moneyinc.com/worst-supreme-court-decisions/
Too often the quote is shorten from ".....falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...." to just "yelling FIRE in a crowed theater" .... and "crowded" is added. While the most important part, "...and causing panic.", is not mentioned at all. As to make it appear that "lying" is not protected speech.
Justice Holmes used it as an example that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that there are speech that is not protected under certain circumstances. Like when it's used to created a "panic" or "present a clear and present danger" that the government should protect the public against. But in the case that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against, the "speech" did not cause a panic and was later ruled as "protected speech".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
It appeared that the SCOTUS had overstepped their boundaries in many cases, when deciding what "clear and present danger" entails and using as a means to denied a person their 1st Amendment rights. The meer act of spreading "disinformation" is protected speech and "clear and present danger" can be too broadly defined by the government to deny ones 1st Amendment rights or worse .... suppress the truth.
Even the very liberal press "The Atlantic", seems to agree.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/ ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state
Most one-party states have been ruled by parties forming in one of the following three circumstances:
As the old axiom goes - accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.
That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".
The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/06/964527835/why-the-pandemic-is-10-times-worse-than-you-think ;
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210208142434.htm
Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death.
What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu.