Ministry Of Truth being implemented

[Trausti]

Who gets to define "disinformation"?

Reality, as revealed by the application of the scientific method.

Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"?

No. All speech that is factually incorrect is.

Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

Because the world is full of cunts who are very effectively spreading lies in order to achieve personal benefit at the expense of wider society.

It's the same fundamental reason as why we give law enforcement agencies the power to stop bank robberies.

How very Soviet of you.

?

There's nothing Soviet about recognising the existence of objective reality. Quite the reverse.

Reality exists. Many questions have a right answer; Many deeply held opinions are simply and factually wrong.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

And why do we need a law enforcement agency for that?

Because highly effective liars are directly and maliciously harming other people, for the benefit of those liars.

Again, it's the exact same reason why we need a law enforcement agency for bank robberies. The world contains malicious people who seek personal gain at the expense of others, and we should not permit them to thrive.

Do you just trust everything government tells you?

No, of course not. What would make you think that?

I don't trust the police either; I expect them to have checks and balances on their actions. But that doesn't mean I don't think they should arrest bank robbers.

Then why on would you give the government authority to regulate speech? Hello?

 

[ZiprHead]

Then why on would you give the government authority to regulate speech? Hello?

What makes you think this is regulating speech? Where did you get this idea?

 

[bilby]

Who gets to define "disinformation"?

Reality, as revealed by the application of the scientific method.

Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"?

No. All speech that is factually incorrect is.

Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

Because the world is full of cunts who are very effectively spreading lies in order to achieve personal benefit at the expense of wider society.

It's the same fundamental reason as why we give law enforcement agencies the power to stop bank robberies.

How very Soviet of you.

?

There's nothing Soviet about recognising the existence of objective reality. Quite the reverse.

Reality exists. Many questions have a right answer; Many deeply held opinions are simply and factually wrong.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

And why do we need a law enforcement agency for that?

Because highly effective liars are directly and maliciously harming other people, for the benefit of those liars.

Again, it's the exact same reason why we need a law enforcement agency for bank robberies. The world contains malicious people who seek personal gain at the expense of others, and we should not permit them to thrive.

Do you just trust everything government tells you?

No, of course not. What would make you think that?

I don't trust the police either; I expect them to have checks and balances on their actions. But that doesn't mean I don't think they should arrest bank robbers.

Then why on would you give the government authority to regulate speech? Hello?

For the same reason you give it authority to regulate anything.

Disinformation isn't merely 'speech', any more than threats, verbal assaults, and fraud are merely speech.

You don't have the right to lie to someone for financial gain; That's fraud.

Why should you have the right to lie to someone for political gain?

The important difference between regulation by a democratic government and regulation by a dictatorial one isn't in the things regulated; It's in the oversights, checks, and balances in the democratic model.

As long as this new committee is subject to congressional oversight, and to judicial review of its regulations, it's indistinguishable from any other regulatory body in the US.

Protecting citizens from people who would do them harm is a primary function of government. Why should telling harmful lies be exempt?

Telling people that life saving medical treatments are harmful and should be avoided (for example) is no more 'free speech' than is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. It does measurable and severe harm.

 

[steve_bank]

As I first leaned during the pandemic the Spanish Flu really did not originate in Spain. It was our government' war time disinformation.

Wut? Government would never do that.

The govt reporting from VN was very much like Russia on Ukraine. We are really winning, all we need is a few more troops. We are really winning because we are killing more VC than they us. The VC can never mount a large scale offensive. We are winng hearts and minds.

Oops, where the hell dis that Tet Offensive come from?

The Pentagon Papers showed by 1997 the Pentagon determined there was no military solution.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not surprised that authoritarians are happy when the government seeks to enforce acceptable speech.

The government is not seeking to enforce acceptable speech, so what you talking about?

 

[Patooka]

The government is not seeking to enforce acceptable speech, so what you talking about?

As per usual, conservatives are mistaking free speech with being able to say whatever the fuck they want without consequences. They want the latter for themselves whilst being able to supress the former if anyone disagrees with them.

 

[Bomb#20]

You don't have the right to lie to someone for financial gain; That's fraud.

Why should you have the right to lie to someone for political gain?

Because if you don't have the right to lie to someone for political gain, then who is lying for political gain will not be judicially determined by "Reality, as revealed by the application of the scientific method." It will be judicially determined by a government official, most probably a government official who is ready and willing to lie to someone for political gain. We don't have free speech laws because the speech that censor-wannabes want to outlaw deserves protection. We have free speech laws because the censor-wannabes cannot be trusted with that much power over their opponents because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Telling people that life saving medical treatments are harmful and should be avoided (for example) is no more 'free speech' than is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. telling draftees that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. It does measurable and severe harm.

FIFY. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

 

[bilby]

You don't have the right to lie to someone for financial gain; That's fraud.

Why should you have the right to lie to someone for political gain?

Because if you don't have the right to lie to someone for political gain, then who is lying for political gain will not be judicially determined by "Reality, as revealed by the application of the scientific method." It will be judicially determined by a government official, most probably a government official who is ready and willing to lie to someone for political gain. We don't have free speech laws because the speech that censor-wannabes want to outlaw deserves protection. We have free speech laws because the censor-wannabes cannot be trusted with that much power over their opponents because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Telling people that life saving medical treatments are harmful and should be avoided (for example) is no more 'free speech' than is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. telling draftees that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. It does measurable and severe harm.

FIFY. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Well if you can't trust your judiciary, you're fucked anyway.

As the case you reference shows, rights don't exist if the judges decide that they don't.

The important difference between regulation by a democratic government and regulation by a dictatorial one isn't in the things regulated; It's in the oversights, checks, and balances in the democratic model.

As long as this new committee is subject to congressional oversight, and to judicial review of its regulations, it's indistinguishable from any other regulatory body in the US

Dictatorships typically have de jure rights for their citizens much the same as those in democracies. The difference in de facto rights is down to the judges, and the other oversight in the system.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Ilk can't even make connections between the same day's news stories! Their hero Ron DeSantis is suppressing Disney's free speech and they don't even see the irony.

I am not surprised that authoritarians are happy when the government seeks to enforce acceptable speech.

 

[Ford]

The government is not seeking to enforce acceptable speech, so what you talking about?

As per usual, conservatives are mistaking free speech with being able to say whatever the fuck they want without consequences. They want the latter for themselves whilst being able to supress the former if anyone disagrees with them.

Seems like another case of projection.

The Trump White House had a bevy of Fox News hosts in the loop when the insurrection happened, and Hannity (at the very least) was on the President's speed dial. Any other network was labeled "fake news" by the White House.

Then of course there's the fact that two of the GOP's biggest rising stars are pedophile-adjacent (Lauren Boebert's husband exposed himself to at least one underage girl and Matt Gaetz is being investigated for possibly trafficking an underage girl across state lines for sexy time) right about the time they're freaking out about "groomers," and to top it all off the "why isn't Biden doing enough for Ukraine?!!" party is more than happy to sidle up to Tucker "What Did Putin Ever Do To You?" Carlson.

Need I mention (again) that the "Party of Family Values" who lost their collective shit over Bill cheating on Hillary has been slavishly obedient to a man who cheated on his first wife with his second, his second wife with his third, and his third wife with a porn star?

It's almost like there's a pattern here...

 

[Patooka]

Seems like another case of projection.

It could just be conservatives are scared shitless of the general public being better informed.

 

[Ford]

Seems like another case of projection.

It could just be conservatives are scared shitless of the general public being better informed.

It's not like they elected a guy who said "I love the poorly educated."

Oh...wait...

 

[scombrid]

Or as thebiden admin calls it, "Disinformation Governance Board".

Headed up by Nina Jankowicz, this board's aim is to suppress "disinformation" and save democracy, from the Russians?

How Orwellian.

Calling disinformation the truth doesn't make it so. Your side is descending farther and farther into loony-bin territory. You'll probably lose the civil war you're trying to trigger because you'll be so far out of touch with reality. The keystone coup writ large.

Who gets to define "disinformation"? Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"? Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

All of the bullshit that Cargill and the Russians pushed about GMO crops is disinfo. Lies about vaccines pushed by Mercola et al. are disinfo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or as thebiden admin calls it, "Disinformation Governance Board".

Headed up by Nina Jankowicz, this board's aim is to suppress "disinformation" and save democracy, from the Russians?

How Orwellian.

Calling disinformation the truth doesn't make it so. Your side is descending farther and farther into loony-bin territory. You'll probably lose the civil war you're trying to trigger because you'll be so far out of touch with reality. The keystone coup writ large.

Who gets to define "disinformation"? Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"? Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

Disinformation is stuff that has already been debunked but keeps being promoted anyway.

 

[scombrid]

Sick of the disinfo being protected by platforms. Go try to debunk disinfo on YouTube and see how fast the ‘free speech’ conservative block you and delete your comments of file complaints to get your channel censured.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I first leaned during the pandemic the Spanish Flu really did not originate in Spain. It was our government' war time disinformation.

Disagree. It wasn't disinformation, but rather just keeping it secret. It became the "Spanish" flu because Spain was the first place it showed up and wasn't kept secret.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's fascinating how Reich-wingers are all for banning books and new draconian laws stopping social and emotional learning, but when a government board gets created to help debunk disinformation from the nation's enemies suddenly Russianpublicans are like "THEY'RE GOING TO ARREST YOU FOR FREE SPEECH!!!11one!" This is classic accuse the other guy of what you're doing. It would probably be a little funny, too, if they weren't creating national security issues and destroying democracy.

"Misinformation." What a shit term. Could you define it?

The purpose of the disinformation board is pretty much the same as other counter propaganda efforts that have always gone on. Suddenly, someone actually gives a title to a board where counter-propaganda has always existed and if I don't definite it for you, it must be a conspiracy!

Who gets to define it?

Apparently, Democrats, Republicans and other Derp State people are going to define foreign propaganda like they always have.

And why should a law enforcement agency be in charge of it?

So you answer the call with more misinformation by calling DHS a law enforcement agency.

The NSA and CIA are not law enforcement and you know that.

What's your goal here? At the moment, you're just providing cover for and inciting the next Reich wing coup attempt.

Shame shame.

 

[Trausti]

So you answer the call with more misinformation by calling DHS a law enforcement agency.

Wut? It’s the largest federal law enforcement agency. FFS. Quit spreading “misinformation” or we’ll put you on the list.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's fascinating how Reich-wingers are all for banning books and new draconian laws stopping social and emotional learning, but when a government board gets created to help debunk disinformation from the nation's enemies suddenly Russianpublicans are like "THEY'RE GOING TO ARREST YOU FOR FREE SPEECH!!!11one!" This is classic accuse the other guy of what you're doing. It would probably be a little funny, too, if they weren't creating national security issues and destroying democracy.

"Misinformation." What a shit term. Could you define it?

The purpose of the disinformation board is pretty much the same as other counter propaganda efforts that have always gone on. Suddenly, someone actually gives a title to a board where counter-propaganda has always existed and if I don't definite it for you, it must be a conspiracy!

Who gets to define it?

Apparently, Democrats, Republicans and other Derp State people are going to define foreign propaganda like they always have.

And why should a law enforcement agency be in charge of it?

So you answer the call with more misinformation by calling DHS a law enforcement agency.

The NSA and CIA are not law enforcement and you know that.

What's your goal here? At the moment, you're just providing cover for and inciting the next Reich wing coup attempt.

Shame shame.

The sad part is that the Reich will shower no favor on their supports who they did not pay, and the supporters they did have who were paid will be explicitly disavowed or even disappeared.

There is no prize in store for the sychophants.

 

[Trausti]

No American government should use law enforcement to regulate speech. Why is that controversial?