We like leftists and liberals.
We want to ban all guns.
We want free healthcare.
We want UBI.
We don't mind being taxed.
We want to give everyone a free abortion!
The content in question?
COVID19 disinformation that was getting people killed.
The hunter Biden laptop thing is a secondary tied in unrelated cliff note that has nothing to do with the heading.
But "government pressures social media platform to crack down on COVID19 disinformation spreading" doesn't have that catchy ring to it to get those clicks now does it.
How many people did that "disinformation" kill? Do first amendment rights end when speech leads to people doing harmful things to themselves?
When they lead to harm, they do indeed end.
People often forget the right to free speech isn't prioritized over other human rights in pretty kych every first world country.
Otherwise stuff like Libel and Slander wouldn't make sense legally. As well as hate speech laws.
Your right to free speech comes after peoples rights to safety from harm, and how that's worded varies country by country, but feel free to Google up on it for your specific case.
It's why stuff like advertising laws, misinformation and disinformation laws, etc can work too.
Free speech isn't right #1, which some people just can't seem to wrap their head around I guess. This isn't even new, it's been like that for ages.
How do you think snake oil salesmen could be prosecuted if they were allowed to just say whatever they want?
Why do you think it's possible to have legal repercussions for threatening to shoot up a school, or bomb a plane?
Yeah. Real important to shut down the "misinformation" that it came from a biolab in Wuhan.
Disinformation is not the same as Misinformation mate.
It's critical to know the difference.
Sure, right, you dismiss the laptop, now. How rich.
And you call it disinformation that was killing people. Proof?
More importantly, this is proof the government was pressuring Facebook to censor information. Full stop.
Now you're just rationalizing it after the fact. Aka sophistry, because you happen to agree with what was censored.
I believe disinformation (not misinformation) that endangered lives should be illegal, yes.
If someone posts a video that purposefully tells people to do something that endangers lives and makes it look good/safe, that person should face penalties of fines or jail time functional of how dangerous their recommendation was.
As for the laptop, I'm not dismissing anything.
It's 100% an entirely unrelated anecdote that was mentioned as a totally seperate and discrete event in the letter, that has nothing to do with the headline.
The article used vague wording to try and jumble the two seperate events together and make it sound like they were one event that occurred, which us extremely shitty journalism.
Stop falling for such obvious bullshit and go read the original source.
I have no issue with governments cracking down on disinformation. It's a huge problem and should carry extremely heavy penalties if it causes harm.
I believe disinformation (not misinformation) that endangered lives should be illegal, yes.
Who determines what is disinformation?
Who determines that the information is endangering lives?
If Trump wins the election do you want him determining these things?
Who determines what is disinformation?
A jury, for a given case
Who determines that the information is endangering lives?
A jury, for a given case
If Trump wins the election do you want him determining these things?
I wouldn't put it past him to try and do that, knowing him.
But that's not how laws work. Determining if a given case is or is not disinformation would be up to a jury to deliberate, based on facts presented by the lawyers.
As that's how the justice system works. Or us supposed to at least.
And yes, proving it is disinformation is super hard, so the prosecutor must have a pretty iron tight case. You'd likely need witnesses that can attest to the defendant outright admitting to the act, or their behaviors that signal intent, or evidence on their devices, etc.
This is exactly how Libel and Slander / Defamation cases work right now, you have to prove the defendant knew they were lying and or making a story up intentionally which is incredibly hard, cuz the dependant can just go "I really thought that was the truth!"
For example in the Heard v Depp case, they had to pull evidence of her doctoring photos and using makeup to really sell the case and win the jury over.
So it's a huge gap to cross...
But...
If you do cross it, I believe the penalty for it should be pretty severe. Especially if the defendant was:
IE those people that dress up like a doctor or nurse or etc and then sell extremely bullshit stuff on social media. That should straight up result in some prison time if they gave out genuinely harmful disinformation.
Before a case makes it to a jury a federal prosecutor has to press charges, the prosecutor can decide which cases to take up and where to prosecute. If Trump wins his appointed prosecutors will go after democrats in Republican stronghold venues.
This was going on before the Biden administration. The federal government is dangerous no matter who is sitting in the white house.
Just a conspiracy theory, eh?
You're right, Tyler Durdan is on to something