Senators want to make social media liable for spreading health misinformation

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.

    I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much.   I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...

    As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not:  All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war).  And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in.  Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
    The United States people and American free media called out his mistruths and they were revealed for what they were. Are Chinese people and their media equally allowed to do the same when their leaders lie or are they muzzled and their voices unheard?  Russian dissidents fare better?  Unless you can answer in the affirmative and offer proof of it then my point is made while your opinion won't pass muster.

    'Nuff said.
    No, not 'nuff said -- because what you are defending is being abused by a professionally managed disinformation campaign where truth has no meaning or value.  The only thing that counts is power and winning.   It is a campaign that has a large part of America living in an alternative reality of fabrications and built out of lies and propaganda.   And, it didn't go away.  It is alive and well.
    From today's AP:

    AP FACT CHECK: Trump is relentless in election fabrications

    Over nearly two hours, Trump revisited his touchstones of grievance, leveling allegations of fraud that election officials and judges have systematically refuted or brushed aside. It was Trump’s most explicit effort to insert himself into the widely discredited Arizona audit as he tries to increase the pressure on other states to embark on similar efforts.

    He spoke of untold thousands of dead people voting ....


    It would be ok if this were just the rantings of some deranged old guy standing on a soap box.   But, social media takes those lies, legitimizes them and propagates them with its megaphone.   And the result is:  Our democracy is under attack and Americans are dying from a plethora of dysinformation spread and legitimized by bad actors on social media and elsewhere.



    tht
  • Reply 62 of 94
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,371member
    peterhart said:
    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? 
    Let’s just start with making liable for profiting from false information. The number of ads that contain lies and scams is astonishing. 
    thtGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 63 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,416member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.

    I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much.   I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...

    As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not:  All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war).  And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in.  Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
    The United States people and American free media called out his mistruths and they were revealed for what they were. Are Chinese people and their media equally allowed to do the same when their leaders lie or are they muzzled and their voices unheard?  Russian dissidents fare better?  Unless you can answer in the affirmative and offer proof of it then my point is made while your opinion won't pass muster.

    'Nuff said.
    George is an authoritarian by nature, and doesn't do nuance.
    OctoMonkey
  • Reply 64 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,416member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.

    I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much.   I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...

    As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not:  All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war).  And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in.  Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
    The United States people and American free media called out his mistruths and they were revealed for what they were. Are Chinese people and their media equally allowed to do the same when their leaders lie or are they muzzled and their voices unheard?  Russian dissidents fare better?  Unless you can answer in the affirmative and offer proof of it then my point is made while your opinion won't pass muster.

    'Nuff said.
    I responded to your assertion that American politicians lie less than those in autocracies.  Obviously that depends on the politician. 

    You say that Trump and his lies were "called out" by the media.  They were.  That's true.  But it didn't (and doesn't) stop he and his lies from continuing unabated and unapologetic.

    I liked Tom Brady's take on it:
    "Nobody thought we could win.   In fact, 40% of Americans still don't think we won".

    But, your point is a good one:   The American free press acts as one of our checks and balances over politicians who make poor choices.  It does not guarantee that we get good leadership.  It merely means that we have checks and balances that, over the long haul, can constrain incompetent or corrupt politicians.   Those checks and balances are what will keep our democracy afloat -- because bad leaders can be exposed and replaced.   China and Russia do not have have that advantage:  they have nothing to stop them if / when they head off into the wrong direction (nothing short of out right revolt). 

    But, organized, professionally managed propaganda and those spreading misinformation are misusing our free press to bring democracy and its stable society to its knees.  It is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our democracy.  And, social media is its megaphone.  If Mark Zuckerberg had been around in the 30's & 40's Europe would be a German colony right now and Hawaii would be speaking Japanese.


    So if official China sources, controlled by the CCP and PRC Government, do the following, and I provide links and documentation to that effect, does that make me, by definition, a "hater"?

    "organized, professionally managed propaganda and those spreading misinformation are misusing our free press to bring democracy and its stable society to its knees.  It is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our democracy."

    If you arbitrarily deny the documentation that I provide, because it doesn't fit your worldview, and revert to calling me a "hater", wouldn't that make you an authoritarian?

    BTW, a better means to an end in this case, might be training to understand and recognize propaganda, not restrict speech.

    You should try that.
    edited July 2021 OctoMonkey
  • Reply 65 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    mattinoz said:
    peterhart said:
    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? 
    Let’s just start with making liable for profiting from false information. The number of ads that contain lies and scams is astonishing. 

    Yes.
    As one example, in the lead up to the last election, Facebook refused to police political ads:  they could lie and spread as much disinformation as they wanted to.
  • Reply 66 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.

    I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much.   I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...

    As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not:  All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war).  And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in.  Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
    The United States people and American free media called out his mistruths and they were revealed for what they were. Are Chinese people and their media equally allowed to do the same when their leaders lie or are they muzzled and their voices unheard?  Russian dissidents fare better?  Unless you can answer in the affirmative and offer proof of it then my point is made while your opinion won't pass muster.

    'Nuff said.
    I responded to your assertion that American politicians lie less than those in autocracies.  Obviously that depends on the politician. 

    You say that Trump and his lies were "called out" by the media.  They were.  That's true.  But it didn't (and doesn't) stop he and his lies from continuing unabated and unapologetic.

    I liked Tom Brady's take on it:
    "Nobody thought we could win.   In fact, 40% of Americans still don't think we won".

    But, your point is a good one:   The American free press acts as one of our checks and balances over politicians who make poor choices.  It does not guarantee that we get good leadership.  It merely means that we have checks and balances that, over the long haul, can constrain incompetent or corrupt politicians.   Those checks and balances are what will keep our democracy afloat -- because bad leaders can be exposed and replaced.   China and Russia do not have have that advantage:  they have nothing to stop them if / when they head off into the wrong direction (nothing short of out right revolt). 

    But, organized, professionally managed propaganda and those spreading misinformation are misusing our free press to bring democracy and its stable society to its knees.  It is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our democracy.  And, social media is its megaphone.  If Mark Zuckerberg had been around in the 30's & 40's Europe would be a German colony right now and Hawaii would be speaking Japanese.


    So if official China sources, controlled by the CCP and PRC Government, do the following, and I provide links and documentation to that effect, does that make me, by definition, a "hater"?

    "organized, professionally managed propaganda and those spreading misinformation are misusing our free press to bring democracy and its stable society to its knees.  It is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our democracy."

    If you arbitrarily deny the documentation that I provide, because it doesn't fit your worldview, and revert to calling me a "hater", wouldn't that make you an authoritarian?

    BTW, a better means to an end in this case, might be training to understand and recognize propaganda, not restrict speech.

    You should try that.

    Once again, sorry for triggering your hate.
    It must be a terrible burden to live with.

  • Reply 67 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,416member
    tmay said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.

    I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much.   I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...

    As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not:  All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war).  And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in.  Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
    The United States people and American free media called out his mistruths and they were revealed for what they were. Are Chinese people and their media equally allowed to do the same when their leaders lie or are they muzzled and their voices unheard?  Russian dissidents fare better?  Unless you can answer in the affirmative and offer proof of it then my point is made while your opinion won't pass muster.

    'Nuff said.
    I responded to your assertion that American politicians lie less than those in autocracies.  Obviously that depends on the politician. 

    You say that Trump and his lies were "called out" by the media.  They were.  That's true.  But it didn't (and doesn't) stop he and his lies from continuing unabated and unapologetic.

    I liked Tom Brady's take on it:
    "Nobody thought we could win.   In fact, 40% of Americans still don't think we won".

    But, your point is a good one:   The American free press acts as one of our checks and balances over politicians who make poor choices.  It does not guarantee that we get good leadership.  It merely means that we have checks and balances that, over the long haul, can constrain incompetent or corrupt politicians.   Those checks and balances are what will keep our democracy afloat -- because bad leaders can be exposed and replaced.   China and Russia do not have have that advantage:  they have nothing to stop them if / when they head off into the wrong direction (nothing short of out right revolt). 

    But, organized, professionally managed propaganda and those spreading misinformation are misusing our free press to bring democracy and its stable society to its knees.  It is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our democracy.  And, social media is its megaphone.  If Mark Zuckerberg had been around in the 30's & 40's Europe would be a German colony right now and Hawaii would be speaking Japanese.


    So if official China sources, controlled by the CCP and PRC Government, do the following, and I provide links and documentation to that effect, does that make me, by definition, a "hater"?

    "organized, professionally managed propaganda and those spreading misinformation are misusing our free press to bring democracy and its stable society to its knees.  It is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our democracy."I doubt that you have any idea of the difference between right and wrong.   Instead you subscribe to some ideology you picked up somewhere and become incensed at any challenges to it.I doubt that you have any idea of the difference between right and wrong.   Instead you subscribe to some ideology you picked up somewhere and become incensed at any challenges to it.

    If you arbitrarily deny the documentation that I provide, because it doesn't fit your worldview, and revert to calling me a "hater", wouldn't that make you an authoritarian?

    BTW, a better means to an end in this case, might be training to understand and recognize propaganda, not restrict speech.

    You should try that.

    Once again, sorry for triggering your hate.
    It must be a terrible burden to live with.

    ...and just like clockwork, with the "hate" label...


    and for those not following the other thread, please welcome another fine Quotation from GeorgeBMac in an exchange with myself;

    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3324609/#Comment_3324609

    Me;
    Your "do the right thing" leans very authoritarian, and I reiterate that you have been misusing "fear and hate" at every chance, to the effect that it has become meaningless.

    GeorgeBMac response;
    I doubt that you have any idea of the difference between right and wrong.   Instead you subscribe to some ideology you picked up somewhere and become incensed at any challenges to it.
    Yeah, I'm sure that that is what happened to me, so that I "don't have any idea of the difference between right and wrong".  /s
    edited July 2021
  • Reply 68 of 94
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,075member
    davidw said:
    davidw said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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.

    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/  ;

    People and organizations spreading dysinformation about a deadly virus or to take down our democracy seems to me to qualify as "clear and present danger".
    And that is OK for you to say. It's OK for Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and other social media to say and use it as a means to censure speech. But to let the government determine what is "clear and present danger", it's not OK. What would prevent the government from censoring the truth or protected speech, if it were allowed to broadly determine what constitutes "clear and present danger"?  They have done it before. 

    It's not only OK for the government to constrain things that harm society, it is their job.
    It is only in the past 2 decades that propaganda has convinced a significant portion of the population that in U.S. democracy one can do or say anything they want -- and government has no right to intervene.  If the delusion continues and and spreads we will become an entire nation of spoiled brats where right and wrong, truth and lies have no meaning.

    But I find it hilarious that you trust Mark Zuckerberg more than you do your own elected government -- and then probably call yourself a proud American (who is ashamed and fearful of his government).
    It's not the government job to legally deny ones Constitutional rights unless under the strictest of standards. What if the government decided the the Civil Rights movement was a "harm to society" and did what it could to silence it? What if the government decided that US citizens of Islam faith were to be detained and interned after 9/11, because they posed a "clear and present danger"? The government did exactly that when FDR signed an executive order to interned 100,000 US citizens of Japanese ancestry during WW2. And what is considered one of the worst ruling by the SCOTUS , they upheld that order.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States ;

    https://moneyinc.com/worst-supreme-court-decisions/

    It wasn't until 1969 with Brandenburg VS Ohio, that the SCOTUS struck down "clear and present danger" and replaced it with "imminent lawless action". Which states that freedom of speech can not be denied unless that speech intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. That is the standard that the SCOTUS must go by today. Not what they think might be a "clear and present danger". 

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio ;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

    So unless the government makes it a violation of the law to not get vaccinated, the government can not denied one's freedom of speech that discourages others from getting vaccinated, even if they are using lies, damn lies and statistics.  

    We expect our government to use the highest standard when it comes to legally denying the people their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Not the very low standard you seem to think its OK for our government to use.

    I would rather trust Zuckerberg than to trust an elected government run by politicians that would throw away someone's Constitutional rights, as easily as you would.   

    Let me ask you this. Who would you trust more,  Zuckerberg or the elected government under Trump? 

      
    edited July 2021
  • Reply 69 of 94
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,371member
    mattinoz said:
    peterhart said:
    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? 
    Let’s just start with making liable for profiting from false information. The number of ads that contain lies and scams is astonishing. 

    Yes.
    As one example, in the lead up to the last election, Facebook refused to police political ads:  they could lie and spread as much disinformation as they wanted to.
    I'm sure if you went to the website right now there would be an ad on the page that you know to be a scam or false.
    It's a daily occurrence they must be so much money just in enabling scammers, they don't even need special occasions. 
  • Reply 70 of 94
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,075member
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

  • Reply 71 of 94
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    Ok, well if that's the strict definition you're using, what evidence is there "that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state"?

    I've never seen any indication that the Democratic Party has any inclination towards banning other political parties.
    tmay
  • Reply 72 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,416member
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    Completely ignoring that the Democratic Party of California has many disparate factions, while the Republican party has so far been able to self enforce a mono block catering to MAGA voters, with nominally Independent voters more often than not, deciding the election in favor of the Democrats. Loyalty to Trump will only last so long before that mono block collapses, and then what?

    Perhaps ranked voting is in the near future for California.

    https://www.fairvoteca.org

    https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2020/04/02/3-runoffs-shine-spotlight-on-democratic-factions-in-deep-blue-california/

    It would seem that Republican success elsewhere comes down more often than not to voter restrictions, over preference for Republican governance. Urbanization of Red states favors Democrats and Independents, and it isn't difficult to imagine some Red states becoming purple with in migration.
  • Reply 73 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    davidw said:
    davidw said:
    davidw said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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.

    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/  ;

    People and organizations spreading dysinformation about a deadly virus or to take down our democracy seems to me to qualify as "clear and present danger".
    And that is OK for you to say. It's OK for Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and other social media to say and use it as a means to censure speech. But to let the government determine what is "clear and present danger", it's not OK. What would prevent the government from censoring the truth or protected speech, if it were allowed to broadly determine what constitutes "clear and present danger"?  They have done it before. 

    It's not only OK for the government to constrain things that harm society, it is their job.
    It is only in the past 2 decades that propaganda has convinced a significant portion of the population that in U.S. democracy one can do or say anything they want -- and government has no right to intervene.  If the delusion continues and and spreads we will become an entire nation of spoiled brats where right and wrong, truth and lies have no meaning.

    But I find it hilarious that you trust Mark Zuckerberg more than you do your own elected government -- and then probably call yourself a proud American (who is ashamed and fearful of his government).
    It's not the government job to legally deny ones Constitutional rights unless under the strictest of standards. What if the government decided the the Civil Rights movement was a "harm to society" and did what it could to silence it? What if the government decided that US citizens of Islam faith were to be detained and interned after 9/11, because they posed a "clear and present danger"? The government did exactly that when FDR signed an executive order to interned 100,000 US citizens of Japanese ancestry during WW2. And what is considered one of the worst ruling by the SCOTUS , they upheld that order.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States ;

    https://moneyinc.com/worst-supreme-court-decisions/

    It wasn't until 1969 with Brandenburg VS Ohio, that the SCOTUS struck down "clear and present danger" and replaced it with "imminent lawless action". Which states that freedom of speech can not be denied unless that speech intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. That is the standard that the SCOTUS must go by today. Not what they think might be a "clear and present danger". 

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio ;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

    So unless the government makes it a violation of the law to not get vaccinated, the government can not denied one's freedom of speech that discourages others from getting vaccinated, even if they are using lies, damn lies and statistics.  

    We expect our government to use the highest standard when it comes to legally denying the people their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Not the very low standard you seem to think its OK for our government to use.

    I would rather trust Zuckerberg than to trust an elected government run by politicians that would throw away someone's Constitutional rights, as easily as you would.   

    Let me ask you this. Who would you trust more,  Zuckerberg or the elected government under Trump? 

      

    You can kill people just as easily by not being vaccinated and not taking precautions as you can by speeding.  Nobody seems to object to speed limits.  But for some reason some people think it's their constitutional right to kill people with the virus.

    But, once social media gets going on it, some people will demand the end to speed limits -- just as they do to masks, quarantines and vaccines.
  • Reply 74 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    ....
    It would seem that Republican success elsewhere comes down more often than not to voter restrictions, over preference for Republican governance. Urbanization of Red states favors Democrats and Independents, and it isn't difficult to imagine some Red states becoming purple with in migration.

    For some reason people fail to recognize the impact of Gerrymandering.    Every 10 years states get the ability to redistrict.  In 2000 the Republican party put on a major drive to capture state legislatures and, by doing so, those politicians were able to pick their voters through gerrymandering for the next decade.   Democratic PA was gerrymandered so heavily it guaranteed a majority of districts elected Republican representatives in both state and federal elections*. 

    And, with the completion of the 2020 census that process is about to start once again.  It's probably one reason why McCarthy is confident of taking back the House in 2022.  But, it's not just 2022 -- it's for the next decade till the next census.

    It is one of the most undemocratic aspects of our democracy.   But, when it came before the Supreme Court, Roberts declared "Not my problem!"


    * In 2018 the PA Supreme Court declared it illegal and redistricted the federal districts themselves.  But, for some reason, they left the state level districts gerrymandered.
  • Reply 75 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,416member
    tmay said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    ....
    It would seem that Republican success elsewhere comes down more often than not to voter restrictions, over preference for Republican governance. Urbanization of Red states favors Democrats and Independents, and it isn't difficult to imagine some Red states becoming purple with in migration.

    For some reason people fail to recognize the impact of Gerrymandering.    Every 10 years states get the ability to redistrict.  In 2000 the Republican party put on a major drive to capture state legislatures and, by doing so, those politicians were able to pick their voters through gerrymandering for the next decade.   Democratic PA was gerrymandered so heavily it guaranteed a majority of districts elected Republican representatives in both state and federal elections*. 

    And, with the completion of the 2020 census that process is about to start once again.  It's probably one reason why McCarthy is confident of taking back the House in 2022.  But, it's not just 2022 -- it's for the next decade till the next census.

    It is one of the most undemocratic aspects of our democracy.   But, when it came before the Supreme Court, Roberts declared "Not my problem!"


    * In 2018 the PA Supreme Court declared it illegal and redistricted the federal districts themselves.  But, for some reason, they left the state level districts gerrymandered.
    Speaking of PA,

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/charlie-gerow-pennsylvania-governor-candidate-fatal-accident-motorcyclist

    GOP Guv Candidate Investigated For Fatal Crash After Driving For Miles With Motorcycle Stuck To Car


  • Reply 76 of 94
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,075member
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    Ok, well if that's the strict definition you're using, what evidence is there "that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state"?

    I've never seen any indication that the Democratic Party has any inclination towards banning other political parties.
    I'm not saying that the Democrats wants a one party system, I'm saying that @GeorgeBMac seems to want a government that is only run by Democrats. 
  • Reply 77 of 94
    techconc said:
    amar99 said:
    Ministry of Truth at work.
    Exactly.  The government shouldn't play a role in this.  This is a slippery slope.  Who becomes the arbiter of truth, especially over opinions?  If we're talking about a "news" site, then fine... hold formal news sites as liable for misinformation.  However, this is social media... where people come to express their opinions, etc.

    1. The government should not be involved with this.

    2. Social media sites shouldn't attempt to be the arbiter of truth either.  Let free speech happen with the exception of #3 (below)

    3. Social media sites should conduct only light moderation.  It's fair to remove blatantly obvious hate speech and posting of things like trade secrets or copyrighted material should be removed.  Beyond that, let people post what they want. 
    Trying to stamp out "hate speech" is how we've gotten to this point where the government is trying to stop health "misinformation" which is just stuff the government dislikes.

    Anyone to spread the truth about MKUltra would be spreading "misinformation". Anyone trying to spread the truth about the Iran-Contra scandal would be spreading "misinformation". Anyone trying to spread the truth about Watergate would be spreading "misinformation" Anyone trying to deny WMD's in Iraq would be spreading "misinformation". Anyone trying to speak out about Sadaams chemical weapons would be spreading "misinformation". 

    The government has shown it cannot be trusted in any regards beyond... What exactly? Highway construction? That people think the government should be allowed to dictate what you can say is quite appalling. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 78 of 94
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,075member

    tmay said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    Completely ignoring that the Democratic Party of California has many disparate factions, while the Republican party has so far been able to self enforce a mono block catering to MAGA voters, with nominally Independent voters more often than not, deciding the election in favor of the Democrats. Loyalty to Trump will only last so long before that mono block collapses, and then what?

    Perhaps ranked voting is in the near future for California.

    https://www.fairvoteca.org

    https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2020/04/02/3-runoffs-shine-spotlight-on-democratic-factions-in-deep-blue-california/

    It would seem that Republican success elsewhere comes down more often than not to voter restrictions, over preference for Republican governance. Urbanization of Red states favors Democrats and Independents, and it isn't difficult to imagine some Red states becoming purple with in migration.
    And what happened during the "Era of Good Feeling" was that The Democratic-Republican Party, which became the dominate party after the collapse of the Federalist Party, became fractured and separated to later form the modern day Democrat Party and Republican Party. If the "Era of Good Feeling' was so good under a "one-party rule", then why did it only last about 8 years (one Presidency, two terms)? 

    Even traditionally "blue" States are now electing GOP governors. And many traditional "Red" states are now electing Democrat governors.

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/415969-pollster-republicans-can-still-win-in-blue-states-if-they-set-aside-the-social-and

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/415546-democrats-gain-governorships-in-red-states

    Here's what CA party control looks like since 1992. It has nothing to do with Republicans being a mono block of MAGA supporters. 

    https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_California_state_government

    Here's what it currently looks like in all 50 States

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas_and_triplexes

    Here's a chart that shows "one-party rule" when it comes to the Presidency, House and Senate

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/03/single-party-control-in-washington-is-common-at-the-beginning-of-a-new-presidency-but-tends-not-to-last-long/

    Interesting that one-party rule isn't as productive as some here seems to think it would be. 

    The problem with "one-party rule" is that when things goes bad, there's no else to blame in on. 
  • Reply 79 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,416member
    davidw said:

    tmay said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    Completely ignoring that the Democratic Party of California has many disparate factions, while the Republican party has so far been able to self enforce a mono block catering to MAGA voters, with nominally Independent voters more often than not, deciding the election in favor of the Democrats. Loyalty to Trump will only last so long before that mono block collapses, and then what?

    Perhaps ranked voting is in the near future for California.

    https://www.fairvoteca.org

    https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2020/04/02/3-runoffs-shine-spotlight-on-democratic-factions-in-deep-blue-california/

    It would seem that Republican success elsewhere comes down more often than not to voter restrictions, over preference for Republican governance. Urbanization of Red states favors Democrats and Independents, and it isn't difficult to imagine some Red states becoming purple with in migration.
    And what happened during the "Era of Good Feeling" was that The Democratic-Republican Party, which became the dominate party after the collapse of the Federalist Party, became fractured and separated to later form the modern day Democrat Party and Republican Party. If the "Era of Good Feeling' was so good under a "one-party rule", then why did it only last about 8 years (one Presidency, two terms)? 

    Even traditionally "blue" States are now electing GOP governors. And many traditional "Red" states are now electing Democrat governors.

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/415969-pollster-republicans-can-still-win-in-blue-states-if-they-set-aside-the-social-and

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/415546-democrats-gain-governorships-in-red-states

    Here's what CA party control looks like since 1992. It has nothing to do with Republicans being a mono block of MAGA supporters. 

    https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_California_state_government

    Here's what it currently looks like in all 50 States

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas_and_triplexes

    Here's a chart that shows "one-party rule" when it comes to the Presidency, House and Senate

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/03/single-party-control-in-washington-is-common-at-the-beginning-of-a-new-presidency-but-tends-not-to-last-long/

    Interesting that one-party rule isn't as productive as some here seems to think it would be. 

    The problem with "one-party rule" is that when things goes bad, there's no else to blame in on. 
    I think that you are stuck on the result, rather than the causation, of CA being a "one party rule" state.

    From my perspective, what is it that keeps Republicans from winning (more) elections in California, and how would the Party turn that around.

    Naturally, I have my opinions.
  • Reply 80 of 94
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    maltz said:
    sdw2001 said:
    rcfa said:
    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? 

    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:

    1. An ideology of Marxism–Leninism and international solidarity (such as the Soviet Union for most of its existence);
    2. Some type of nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party);
    3. 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.
    The US has had an effective one party system before.  It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.

    As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system.  And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system.  Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
    One political party becoming dominate for a period of time, is not the definition of a "one party system (state)". Other political parties existed, but they were powerless as they didn't have the numbers. It's what's known as "one party rule". If that were the case, CA could be considered a "one party system" and not  a "one party rule".  And believe me, not many people living outside of CA, would want the US government to be run like the "one party rule" government controlling  CA.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/fighting-the-one-party-state-at-the-local-level-in-california/ ;

    Ok, well if that's the strict definition you're using, what evidence is there "that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state"?

    I've never seen any indication that the Democratic Party has any inclination towards banning other political parties.
    I'm not saying that the Democrats wants a one party system, I'm saying that @GeorgeBMac seems to want a government that is only run by Democrats. 
    You literally said this:
    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? 
    Given that you've defined what you mean by one-party state as literally one party and one party alone, then what do you mean by that quote, if not the Democrats (and Republicans) wanting to remove the other parties?

    And if that is what you mean then what evidence do you have for that being the case?
Sign In or Register to comment.