Senators want to make social media liable for spreading health misinformation

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    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. 

    I want a government that respects rather than attacks democracy.
  • Reply 82 of 94
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    tmay said:
    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.
    Unions. Powerful Government workers (public sector) unions especially. 

    It's very difficult for any new candidate, Democrat or Republican, to unseat any incumbent that have already lined their pockets with union money. Though unions will support any candidate that's willing to be bought, most pro union candidates are Democrats. The vast majority of union money goes to Democrats. 

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/beholden-state-13274.html?wallit_nosession=1

    https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/the-financial-power-of-californias-government-unions/

    https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-teachers-union-school-reopening-donate-15927654.php

    https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/winning-a-war-of-attrition-against-government-unions/

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/why-we-fight-government-unions/

    https://californiapolicycenter.org/how-government-unions-are-destroying-california-2/

    https://calmatters.org/politics/california-election-2020/2020/10/california-lawmakers-big-donors-special-interest-independent-expenditures/

    But there's hope

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/the-public-union-stranglehold-on-california-politics-is-weakening/

    But on the other hand 

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/02/joe-biden-unions

  • Reply 83 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    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. 

    So say the people spreading disinformation about the virus, the vaccine and about our last election.

    When it brings harm to society it is harmful.  This isn't rocket science.
  • Reply 84 of 94
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    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. 

    When it brings harm to society it is harmful.  This isn't rocket science.
    Trite phraseology.  

    Sometimes no pain really means no gain. We all could have remained farmers and craftsmen and small shopkeepers which did have its good points.Some of our greatest advancements caused what was perceived by large segments of the populace at the time as harm to society. 
    tmay
  • Reply 85 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    AP reports on the infiltration of white supremacists (in this case the KKK) into law enforcement and the bureaus of prisons.  It also reports how police unions have used free speech laws to block the identification of these domestic terrorists -- so even if they are identified and fired, they simply move to another department since there is no record -- because: "free speech":

    "Domestic terrorism experts have been calling for better screening to help identify extremists before they’re hired. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have tried to pass new screening laws, only to be prevented by police unions, whose legal challenges argued successfully that such queries violate free speech rights.

    Without screening, white supremacists who get inside can operate with impunity, targeting Black and other people of color, and recruiting others who share their views.

    “Unless your name ends up in an FBI wiretap” an officer will go undetected, said Fred Burton, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service. “There are loopholes in the background investigative process.”

    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-business-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-only-on-ap-2b4106de3ebcbfae85948439a7056031


    So, just as Russia used our free speech rights to undermine an election and Q uses free speech to spread conspiracy theories, white supremacist terrorists are using them to spread their terror into the agencies meant to protect us from such scum.

    Our laws meant to protect the citizens of this country are being used against those same citizens.
    While the argument usually devolves into black and white:  "Free Speech or Censored Speech?", clearly clarification and fine tuning is required to stop those who are a danger to our society and its democracy from using those protections to propagate their evil.




  • Reply 86 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,398member
    AP reports on the infiltration of white supremacists (in this case the KKK) into law enforcement and the bureaus of prisons.  It also reports how police unions have used free speech laws to block the identification of these domestic terrorists -- so even if they are identified and fired, they simply move to another department since there is no record -- because: "free speech":

    "Domestic terrorism experts have been calling for better screening to help identify extremists before they’re hired. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have tried to pass new screening laws, only to be prevented by police unions, whose legal challenges argued successfully that such queries violate free speech rights.

    Without screening, white supremacists who get inside can operate with impunity, targeting Black and other people of color, and recruiting others who share their views.

    “Unless your name ends up in an FBI wiretap” an officer will go undetected, said Fred Burton, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service. “There are loopholes in the background investigative process.”

    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-business-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-only-on-ap-2b4106de3ebcbfae85948439a7056031


    So, just as Russia used our free speech rights to undermine an election and Q uses free speech to spread conspiracy theories, white supremacist terrorists are using them to spread their terror into the agencies meant to protect us from such scum.

    Our laws meant to protect the citizens of this country are being used against those same citizens.
    While the argument usually devolves into black and white:  "Free Speech or Censored Speech?", clearly clarification and fine tuning is required to stop those who are a danger to our society and its democracy from using those protections to propagate their evil.




    So, when China does the same thing that Russia does, and I post articles and links to that effect, you have and will call me a "hater". Is that how free speech works for you?

    You actually demonstrate the case for keeping the government away from advancing controls on speech.
  • Reply 87 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    AP reports on the infiltration of white supremacists (in this case the KKK) into law enforcement and the bureaus of prisons.  It also reports how police unions have used free speech laws to block the identification of these domestic terrorists -- so even if they are identified and fired, they simply move to another department since there is no record -- because: "free speech":

    "Domestic terrorism experts have been calling for better screening to help identify extremists before they’re hired. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have tried to pass new screening laws, only to be prevented by police unions, whose legal challenges argued successfully that such queries violate free speech rights.

    Without screening, white supremacists who get inside can operate with impunity, targeting Black and other people of color, and recruiting others who share their views.

    “Unless your name ends up in an FBI wiretap” an officer will go undetected, said Fred Burton, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service. “There are loopholes in the background investigative process.”

    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-business-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-only-on-ap-2b4106de3ebcbfae85948439a7056031


    So, just as Russia used our free speech rights to undermine an election and Q uses free speech to spread conspiracy theories, white supremacist terrorists are using them to spread their terror into the agencies meant to protect us from such scum.

    Our laws meant to protect the citizens of this country are being used against those same citizens.
    While the argument usually devolves into black and white:  "Free Speech or Censored Speech?", clearly clarification and fine tuning is required to stop those who are a danger to our society and its democracy from using those protections to propagate their evil.




    So, when China does the same thing that Russia does, and I post articles and links to that effect, you have and will call me a "hater". Is that how free speech works for you?

    You actually demonstrate the case for keeping the government away from advancing controls on speech.

    You are clearly obsessed with hate.  
    Once again, the post you are responding to has nothing to do with China.  Yet you attempt to divert it to your hatred of that country.
  • Reply 88 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,398member
    tmay said:
    AP reports on the infiltration of white supremacists (in this case the KKK) into law enforcement and the bureaus of prisons.  It also reports how police unions have used free speech laws to block the identification of these domestic terrorists -- so even if they are identified and fired, they simply move to another department since there is no record -- because: "free speech":

    "Domestic terrorism experts have been calling for better screening to help identify extremists before they’re hired. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have tried to pass new screening laws, only to be prevented by police unions, whose legal challenges argued successfully that such queries violate free speech rights.

    Without screening, white supremacists who get inside can operate with impunity, targeting Black and other people of color, and recruiting others who share their views.

    “Unless your name ends up in an FBI wiretap” an officer will go undetected, said Fred Burton, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service. “There are loopholes in the background investigative process.”

    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-business-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-only-on-ap-2b4106de3ebcbfae85948439a7056031


    So, just as Russia used our free speech rights to undermine an election and Q uses free speech to spread conspiracy theories, white supremacist terrorists are using them to spread their terror into the agencies meant to protect us from such scum.

    Our laws meant to protect the citizens of this country are being used against those same citizens.
    While the argument usually devolves into black and white:  "Free Speech or Censored Speech?", clearly clarification and fine tuning is required to stop those who are a danger to our society and its democracy from using those protections to propagate their evil.




    So, when China does the same thing that Russia does, and I post articles and links to that effect, you have and will call me a "hater". Is that how free speech works for you?

    You actually demonstrate the case for keeping the government away from advancing controls on speech.

    You are clearly obsessed with hate.  
    Once again, the post you are responding to has nothing to do with China.  Yet you attempt to divert it to your hatred of that country.
    LOL!

    ...you said "hate" and "hatred" again...

    I'm too busy to mock you anymore.

    Buh Bye!

    I'll leave you with this;

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/27/first-person-charged-under-hong-kong-security-law-found-guilty

    The first person charged under Hong Kong’s national security law has been found guilty of “terrorism” and “inciting secession”, in a landmark case with long-term implications for how the legislation reshapes the city’s common law traditions.

    Former waiter Tong Ying-kit, 24, was accused of driving his motorcycle in July last year into three riot police officers while carrying a flag with the protest slogan: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”, which prosecutors said was secessionist.


    China sure as shit knows how to control speech, and that's probably what you want for the U.S., right?

    I remember how you supported the PRC during the initial Hong Kong protests, over the imposition of the National Security Law, of all things, stating the the U.S. instigated that, which of course, was completely false. 



    edited July 2021
  • Reply 89 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    AP reports on the infiltration of white supremacists (in this case the KKK) into law enforcement and the bureaus of prisons.  It also reports how police unions have used free speech laws to block the identification of these domestic terrorists -- so even if they are identified and fired, they simply move to another department since there is no record -- because: "free speech":

    "Domestic terrorism experts have been calling for better screening to help identify extremists before they’re hired. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have tried to pass new screening laws, only to be prevented by police unions, whose legal challenges argued successfully that such queries violate free speech rights.

    Without screening, white supremacists who get inside can operate with impunity, targeting Black and other people of color, and recruiting others who share their views.

    “Unless your name ends up in an FBI wiretap” an officer will go undetected, said Fred Burton, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service. “There are loopholes in the background investigative process.”

    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-business-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-only-on-ap-2b4106de3ebcbfae85948439a7056031


    So, just as Russia used our free speech rights to undermine an election and Q uses free speech to spread conspiracy theories, white supremacist terrorists are using them to spread their terror into the agencies meant to protect us from such scum.

    Our laws meant to protect the citizens of this country are being used against those same citizens.
    While the argument usually devolves into black and white:  "Free Speech or Censored Speech?", clearly clarification and fine tuning is required to stop those who are a danger to our society and its democracy from using those protections to propagate their evil.




    So, when China does the same thing that Russia does, and I post articles and links to that effect, you have and will call me a "hater". Is that how free speech works for you?

    You actually demonstrate the case for keeping the government away from advancing controls on speech.

    You are clearly obsessed with hate.  
    Once again, the post you are responding to has nothing to do with China.  Yet you attempt to divert it to your hatred of that country.
    LOL!

    ...you said "hate" and "hatred" again...

    I'm too busy to mock you anymore.

    Buh Bye!

    I'll leave you with this;

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/27/first-person-charged-under-hong-kong-security-law-found-guilty

    The first person charged under Hong Kong’s national security law has been found guilty of “terrorism” and “inciting secession”, in a landmark case with long-term implications for how the legislation reshapes the city’s common law traditions.

    Former waiter Tong Ying-kit, 24, was accused of driving his motorcycle in July last year into three riot police officers while carrying a flag with the protest slogan: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”, which prosecutors said was secessionist.


    China sure as shit knows how to control speech, and that's probably what you want for the U.S., right?

    I remember how you supported the PRC during the initial Hong Kong protests, over the imposition of the National Security Law, of all things, stating the the U.S. instigated that, which of course, was completely false. 




    Your hate consumes you.  You attempt to divert every thread to spread your hate -- just like you're doing here.
  • Reply 90 of 94
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

                
  • Reply 91 of 94
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,398member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    AP reports on the infiltration of white supremacists (in this case the KKK) into law enforcement and the bureaus of prisons.  It also reports how police unions have used free speech laws to block the identification of these domestic terrorists -- so even if they are identified and fired, they simply move to another department since there is no record -- because: "free speech":

    "Domestic terrorism experts have been calling for better screening to help identify extremists before they’re hired. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have tried to pass new screening laws, only to be prevented by police unions, whose legal challenges argued successfully that such queries violate free speech rights.

    Without screening, white supremacists who get inside can operate with impunity, targeting Black and other people of color, and recruiting others who share their views.

    “Unless your name ends up in an FBI wiretap” an officer will go undetected, said Fred Burton, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service. “There are loopholes in the background investigative process.”

    https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-business-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-only-on-ap-2b4106de3ebcbfae85948439a7056031


    So, just as Russia used our free speech rights to undermine an election and Q uses free speech to spread conspiracy theories, white supremacist terrorists are using them to spread their terror into the agencies meant to protect us from such scum.

    Our laws meant to protect the citizens of this country are being used against those same citizens.
    While the argument usually devolves into black and white:  "Free Speech or Censored Speech?", clearly clarification and fine tuning is required to stop those who are a danger to our society and its democracy from using those protections to propagate their evil.




    So, when China does the same thing that Russia does, and I post articles and links to that effect, you have and will call me a "hater". Is that how free speech works for you?

    You actually demonstrate the case for keeping the government away from advancing controls on speech.

    You are clearly obsessed with hate.  
    Once again, the post you are responding to has nothing to do with China.  Yet you attempt to divert it to your hatred of that country.
    LOL!

    ...you said "hate" and "hatred" again...

    I'm too busy to mock you anymore.

    Buh Bye!

    I'll leave you with this;

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/27/first-person-charged-under-hong-kong-security-law-found-guilty

    The first person charged under Hong Kong’s national security law has been found guilty of “terrorism” and “inciting secession”, in a landmark case with long-term implications for how the legislation reshapes the city’s common law traditions.

    Former waiter Tong Ying-kit, 24, was accused of driving his motorcycle in July last year into three riot police officers while carrying a flag with the protest slogan: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”, which prosecutors said was secessionist.


    China sure as shit knows how to control speech, and that's probably what you want for the U.S., right?

    I remember how you supported the PRC during the initial Hong Kong protests, over the imposition of the National Security Law, of all things, stating the the U.S. instigated that, which of course, was completely false. 




    Your hate consumes you.  You attempt to divert every thread to spread your hate -- just like you're doing here.
    LOL!

    No, not divert every thread; just painting a picture of the lazy authoritarian that you are known to be around here.

    Here's a post just for you...

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/five-eyes-warn-about-hacking-dangers-in-wake-of-china-cyber-attacks-20210728-p58dsu.html

    Australia’s premier cyber security agency has joined forces with its “Five Eyes” partners for the first time to issue an unprecedented warning about the vulnerabilities cyber hackers are exploiting in the wake of a series of hacks by China.

    In a joint statement with its sister agencies in Britain, Canada, the United States and New Zealand, the Australian Cyber Security Centre released advice on the top 30 cyber security vulnerabilities being exploited by hackers over the past 18 months.

    The five agencies released the advice partly in response to a wave of hackings orchestrated by China’s Ministry of State Security in which it also paid criminal groups to conduct ransomware attacks to extort millions of dollars from companies. The attack on Microsoft Exchange software topped the list of the biggest vulnerabilities exploited so far in 2021.

    Australia last week took the rare step of joining with key allies to formally accuse Beijing of the co-ordinated hackings and engaging contract hackers to steal intellectual property in the attacks, which began in January.

    The attacks on Microsoft Exchange software allowed hackers to gain access to the email systems of thousands of users, including in Australia.


    Does that make me a "hater" or just a concerned citizen?


    edited July 2021
  • Reply 92 of 94
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    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. 

    So say the people spreading disinformation about the virus, the vaccine and about our last election.

    When it brings harm to society it is harmful.  This isn't rocket science.

    As much as those that are spreading disinformation about the virus, the vaccine and about our last election, offends you. I will defend their right to say it, just as I would defend your right to be offended by what they say. 

    Here's one of my favorite quote about freedom of speech, by an author name Neil Gaiman

    “If you accept – and I do – that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said. The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made. People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble. [...] The Law is a blunt instrument. It’s not a scalpel. It’s a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible.” 

    Neil Gaiman



    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 93 of 94
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    davidw said:
    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. 

    So say the people spreading disinformation about the virus, the vaccine and about our last election.

    When it brings harm to society it is harmful.  This isn't rocket science.

    As much as those that are spreading disinformation about the virus, the vaccine and about our last election, offends you. I will defend their right to say it, just as I would defend your right to be offended by what they say. 

    Here's one of my favorite quote about freedom of speech, by an author name Neil Gaiman

    “If you accept – and I do – that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said. The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made. People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble. [...] The Law is a blunt instrument. It’s not a scalpel. It’s a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible.” 

    Neil Gaiman



    No, sorry...  

    It's not OK...   When it harms society (and its people) it gets shut down.  Lies, propaganda and disinformation may flourish for a time -- but either it or the society it exists in dies.

    The guy who told the Capitol Police Cop that Trump won the election was no more right or justified than the one who told him to bring Nancy Pelosi out so they could hang her.  The same with those killing Americans by spreading disinformation about the virus, masks and vaccines.



  • Reply 94 of 94
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    davidw said:
    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. 

    So say the people spreading disinformation about the virus, the vaccine and about our last election.

    When it brings harm to society it is harmful.  This isn't rocket science.

    As much as those that are spreading disinformation about the virus, the vaccine and about our last election, offends you. I will defend their right to say it, just as I would defend your right to be offended by what they say. 

    Here's one of my favorite quote about freedom of speech, by an author name Neil Gaiman

    “If you accept – and I do – that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said. The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made. People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble. [...] The Law is a blunt instrument. It’s not a scalpel. It’s a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible.” 

    Neil Gaiman



    No, sorry...  

    It's not OK...   When it harms society (and its people) it gets shut down.  Lies, propaganda and disinformation may flourish for a time -- but either it or the society it exists in dies.

    The guy who told the Capitol Police Cop that Trump won the election was no more right or justified than the one who told him to bring Nancy Pelosi out so they could hang her.  The same with those killing Americans by spreading disinformation about the virus, masks and vaccines.



    The minority voices and unpopular opinions  might never be heard, regardless if it does harm to society, if what constitutes "harm to society" was left up to a democracy. 

    There's a reason why our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution so that we as a "society", are governed more like a republic than that of a democracy. And it doesn't take rocket science, to know why. 

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." 

    Benjamin Franklin


    In a free society, your voice is probably more harmful than those supporting Trump and those spreading disinformation about the vaccine. But it still deserves to be heard, if a free society exist and it wants to survive.
    OctoMonkeymuthuk_vanalingamgatorguy
Sign In or Register to comment.