How to Put Out Democracy’s Dumpster Fire

[Gun Nut]

So, how do you regulate social networks without turning into China?

25% of people are simply idiots who can't handle the internet.

By making the intentional spreading of obvious, provable lies highly illegal and financially devastating to corporations caught dealing in it... by way of clarification of the first amendment NOT meaning you are free to say anything at all with no consequence... just like the second amendment does not say you can shoot bullets anywhere and everywhere because freedom.

How, exactly, do you prove lies though?
I mean, intentional falsehood as opposed to mistakes?
Every news organization has had opportunity to to print a retraction because they erred. How do you punish lying liars without also putting everyone else at risk if they make a mistake that's later proven wrong?

People are accused, indicted, and eventually convicted of crimes where intentionality is at the core of the issue... this happens all the time. It is trivially easy to put yourself in someone else's shoes and decide if what they did or said was a reasonable thing... that is, if one possesses empathy... like, not a psychopath.
Obviously, a mistake is something someone does until corrected. Obviously, continuing to make that "mistake" is dishonest, and obviously a lie. Obvious to any reasonable adult, that is.

You go to jail for intentionally attempting to defraud the US government via false claims on your income tax forms. You do not go to jail for accidentally forgetting to carry the one... you get an adjusted tax burden and a letter in the mail telling you so. That's it. Are you opposed to the IRS being able to accuse anyone for doing anything nefarious on their taxes AT ALL, because one could argue that it was just a tiny multi-million dollar mistake... 10 times in a row.. requiring massive gyrations and maneuvers everywhere else on the form and with bank records.... and... just a slip of the pen... of course.

Is your issue that you are of the opinion that falsehoods are protected speech under the first amendment, or that intentionality is impossible to determine?

 

[Trausti]

How, exactly, do you prove lies though?
I mean, intentional falsehood as opposed to mistakes?
Every news organization has had opportunity to to print a retraction because they erred. How do you punish lying liars without also putting everyone else at risk if they make a mistake that's later proven wrong?

People are accused, indicted, and eventually convicted of crimes where intentionality is at the core of the issue... this happens all the time. It is trivially easy to put yourself in someone else's shoes and decide if what they did or said was a reasonable thing... that is, if one possesses empathy... like, not a psychopath.
Obviously, a mistake is something someone does until corrected. Obviously, continuing to make that "mistake" is dishonest, and obviously a lie. Obvious to any reasonable adult, that is.

You go to jail for intentionally attempting to defraud the US government via false claims on your income tax forms. You do not go to jail for accidentally forgetting to carry the one... you get an adjusted tax burden and a letter in the mail telling you so. That's it. Are you opposed to the IRS being able to accuse anyone for doing anything nefarious on their taxes AT ALL, because one could argue that it was just a tiny multi-million dollar mistake... 10 times in a row.. requiring massive gyrations and maneuvers everywhere else on the form and with bank records.... and... just a slip of the pen... of course.

Is your issue that you are of the opinion that falsehoods are protected speech under the first amendment, or that intentionality is impossible to determine?

You sign your taxes under penalty of perjury. Otherwise, you can lie all you want.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is your issue that you are of the opinion that falsehoods are protected speech under the first amendment, or that intentionality is impossible to determine?

Not impossible to determine, but difficult to objectively establish in the case of reporting, sharing, passing along.
All your examples are of the principals committing fraud. You know or are expected to know how many dependents you have when you make your claim, for example. You sign the form, '...fact, to tyye bedt of my knowledge.'
The Media are not the principals in a story or anecdote. If someone tells an untruth, the medua are not lying when they pass this information along. Just not terribly diligent in verifying the story. Which may or may not be their intent.
Then, how do you determine if they are incompetent or complicit?

 

[Elixir]

Then, how do you determine if they are incompetent or complicit?

If they are MSM, they're trying to brainwash you into electing socialist dictators like Obama.
If they're conservotainment nooze they're trying to promote America, family values, godliness and Trump.

 

[bilby]

Lying is only half the problem anyway.

Omission is just as problematic, particularly if either the number of media owners is small, or the public tend to isolate themselves into bubbles with small numbers of sources.

The state of Western Australia had their elections on Saturday, but if you live on the east coast, and particularly if you only get your news from commercial sources, you might be forgiven for not knowing it had happened.

Our only national newspaper, (Murdoch's The Australian) barely mentioned it - despite its being an astonishingly one-sided contest, in which the main opposition party was almost entirely wiped out. With three seats still in doubt, the Labour Party have won 50 of the 59 seats, and are projected to win another two; The opposition have won just two seats. This should have been front page news, particularly as it may have major implications for the entire country, and even more so as it is seen as being in large part a rejection of the Federal PM's attempts to intervene in the WA premier's border control policies during Covid.

The ABC reported on the implications and causes of this resounding defeat of the Federal Prime Minister's party, (the Liberals, who are conservatives): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-15/wa-election-federal-implications-voting/13239076

But anybody who gets their news from the Murdoch dominated press, including the Murdoch dominated commercial TV news, is likely unaware of this political bloodbath and its implications for our leadership in Canberra.

Not reporting this news, or burying it in two colimn inches on page 23, is as powerful a manipulation of the public as lying about it would be. And is particularly ironic, given that the key driver of the result is WA citizens' unhappiness at being ignored by the people of the east coast. If we on the east coast don't get the news, how could we not ignore them?

One solution, at least in part, is to have a national media organisation, like the ABC, that is as far as possible independent of commercial or government influence. But how do you persuade people not to ignore such an outlet in favour of only ever watching Fox News, and only reading memes posted by their qolleagues on Parler?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Then, how do you determine if they are incompetent or complicit?

If they are MSM, they're trying to brainwash you into electing socialist dictators like Obama.
If they're conservotainment nooze they're trying to promote America, family values, godliness and Trump.

That does make it handy to prove in court. If the defendant shows up, they're admitting they're the liar. If they mount a defense, they should be held in contempt for wasting the court's time.

 

[barbos]

That's my point. US is founded on this idea that everyone can have their own opinion and all opinions are equal and should be respected. Well, here is a drawback of this approach.

We were talking about lies. Not differing opinions. The difficulty of policing actual efforts to misinform and spread those lies.

When you prove that person lied they usually start claiming opinion or even religion.
FoxNews people know they are lying. it's just lots of their viewers have an opinion which they want to be reinforced from TV.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's my point. US is founded on this idea that everyone can have their own opinion and all opinions are equal and should be respected. Well, here is a drawback of this approach.

We were talking about lies. Not differing opinions. The difficulty of policing actual efforts to misinform and spread those lies.

When you prove that person lied they usually start claiming opinion or even religion.

So, same question, how do you prove it wasn't opinion or religion?

How do you set it up so this administration prevents=punishes Fox for lying, without simultaneously giving a Trump-style administration a weapon to punish opinion?

 

[barbos]

When you prove that person lied they usually start claiming opinion or even religion.

So, same question, how do you prove it wasn't opinion or religion?

How do you set it up so this administration prevents=punishes Fox for lying, without simultaneously giving a Trump-style administration a weapon to punish opinion?

I am not suggesting any solutions. I am just pointing out problems with this unlimited freedom of religion opinion thing.

Here is funny story from Russia. We have some laws against opinionated extremist literature. So they found a guy with some islamic extremist shit, send it to linguist/specialist, he/she determines "Yes, that's the real stuff, send him to prison". Then it turns out these are pages from the Koran (one of the translations to russian). Had to overturn conviction. That's where line is drawn in Russia: want to be an asshole - find an established/registered religion, no new unregistered shit, only very old shit.

maybe it's good approach, if you don't allow new shit and wait enough, old shit will die out by itself.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When you prove that person lied they usually start claiming opinion or even religion.

So, same question, how do you prove it wasn't opinion or religion?

How do you set it up so this administration prevents=punishes Fox for lying, without simultaneously giving a Trump-style administration a weapon to punish opinion?

I am not suggesting any solutions. I am just pointing out problems with this unlimited freedom of religion opinion thing.

No one has said there are not problems. But the problem with limiting the unlimited freedom is that the limits become a weapon.

 

[steve_bank]

Biden on TV said to the immigrants 'don't come.. yet'.

The progressives while not being explicit supports open immigration. Some want to decriminalize what is now illegal immigration. Get across the border and you are home free.

Point again being when a political shift occurs it is between two extremes.

Remember Bill Clinton enacted welfare reform, a bipartisan issue. From a documentary on Reagan, Reagan and Tip O'Neil used to have drinks at the White House after hours swapping stories and jokes.

That will never happen today. The polarized media will never let it take hold, and any cooperation will be threatened by Trump who still holds power.

You blame Trump, but this started at least with W. Every Republican president/nominee since W (if not before) has been called a Nazi by the Left. Even Romney. Recall when W and Ellen DeGeneres were seen happy together watching a football game. Outrage. But only from the Left.

I don't blame Trump for the immigration mess. He did exploits it to trump up support among racists, that is self evident.

The fault lies with congress. They are responsible for immigration.

In the news Biden's compressive reform bill is stalled in the housie, not enough democratic sup[port. Status quo.

I saw on old 1940s movie on TV called Border Incident. It is about American and Mexica border agents trying to bring down a human trafficking ring supplying business with cheap labor.

It could have been made today. Border violence and illegals being left to die by smugglers.

It is an old problem. Nothing was done because business wanted it and it gave us cheap food harvested by illegals. Do you know who Caesar Chavez was?

 

[steve_bank]

Arrow Theorem

When a community is made up of a number of groups with very distinct interests, over time nobody really gets what they want.

What is unique about the U.S. is that it's electorate, in total, is more conservative than many other Western democracies. This changes the trajectory of the Arrow. In Canada we've had a bit of a better trajectory because fewer Conservatives live in our country, our natural governing party is Centrist.

Personally, I'm not convinced that democracy's problem right now is social media as such. Social media definitely doesn't help, but I'd guess the economy is the biggest factor. When people are struggling it opens the door for populism / racism / xenophobia etc.

Well said.

 

[Gun Nut]

Is your issue that you are of the opinion that falsehoods are protected speech under the first amendment, or that intentionality is impossible to determine?

Not impossible to determine, but difficult to objectively establish in the case of reporting, sharing, passing along.
All your examples are of the principals committing fraud. You know or are expected to know how many dependents you have when you make your claim, for example. You sign the form, '...fact, to tyye bedt of my knowledge.'
The Media are not the principals in a story or anecdote. If someone tells an untruth, the medua are not lying when they pass this information along. Just not terribly diligent in verifying the story. Which may or may not be their intent.
Then, how do you determine if they are incompetent or complicit?

It can get complicated.. but less so if it applies only within the scope of the speech of a pubic servant or official candidate.
I am calling for a greater limit on first amendment protection of the government than on the individual, private citizen enjoys. Lie all YOU want... but the second you join what should be a circle of trust that is our government, god fucking help you if you lie in the course of your public service. "incompetent or complicit"? you pick. Disqualified for public service either way.
We're not talking about a mistake, not a stutter, not a misspelling... a lie like any reasonable person provided the facts would plainly see is a lie. Being wrong is not a lie and any reasonable person can tell the difference.
Use whatever existing judicial tools there are to determine motive, intent, and method.
a retraction of what might be perceived as a lie when simply being wrong need not be any more broad than the original message.
correction / retraction should be favored over any penalty, the benefit of the doubt must be that they were simply wrong... a repetition of the same lie should be career ending if not incarcerating.
How is this not as obvious as "don't assault people". "Don't stab people in the brain with words crafted to deceive". It's not complicated at all, really.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How is this not as obvious as "don't assault people". "Don't stab people in the brain with words crafted to deceive". It's not complicated at all, really.

Because we just spent four years listening to a weasel.
"People are saying,..." what tools are there to prove
1 . People are NOT saying,
2 . He knows they are not
3 . He did not misunderstand something he saw on TV or overheard
4 . He did not just misremember what was said

Legislating this sort of thing just increases the weasel wording. It accomplishes nothing to defeat actual liars, and risks overreactions to mistakes.

 

[Gun Nut]

How is this not as obvious as "don't assault people". "Don't stab people in the brain with words crafted to deceive". It's not complicated at all, really.

Because we just spent four years listening to a weasel.
"People are saying,..." what tools are there to prove
1 . People are NOT saying,
2 . He knows they are not
3 . He did not misunderstand something he saw on TV or overheard
4 . He did not just misremember what was said

Legislating this sort of thing just increases the weasel wording. It accomplishes nothing to defeat actual liars, and risks overreactions to mistakes.

simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and allowing for retraction rather than retaliation as a first response. "people are saying" is easy to substantiate. He is a person. all he needs is 1 more person to say it and "people" are, indeed, saying. It's meaningless... it's trickery. It's intended to deceive. It's not a substantive lie.

 

[James Brown]

"I've read that..."

"Studies show..."

"It's commonly believed..."

 

[ideologyhunter]

One of our local postal clerks is a Q-Anon moron. Doesn't mean shit to a tree. You can still get a parcel weighed and mailed. You just know that the smiling face that takes your money is one of the "many people" who think that Trump is a crusader against the child -- oh, fuck, I can't finish the sentence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How is this not as obvious as "don't assault people". "Don't stab people in the brain with words crafted to deceive". It's not complicated at all, really.

Because we just spent four years listening to a weasel.
"People are saying,..." what tools are there to prove
1 . People are NOT saying,
2 . He knows they are not
3 . He did not misunderstand something he saw on TV or overheard
4 . He did not just misremember what was said

Legislating this sort of thing just increases the weasel wording. It accomplishes nothing to defeat actual liars, and risks overreactions to mistakes.

simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and allowing for retraction rather than retaliation as a first response. "people are saying" is easy to substantiate. He is a person. all he needs is 1 more person to say it and "people" are, indeed, saying. It's meaningless... it's trickery. It's intended to deceive. It's not a substantive lie.

Yes, it's trickery, but why is the burden on him, suddenly, to substantiate?
If you're accusing him of lying, isn't the burden traditionally on you?

 

[bilby]

You people need to watch all of 'Yes Minister', and 'Yes, Prime Minister'.

Anyone who hasn't is completely unqualified to have any opinion on lying, propaganda, misinformation, or the way in which a government actually operates (in contrast to how it is supposed to operate).

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fji-GTU9nRA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Swammerdami]

You people need to watch all of 'Yes Minister', and 'Yes, Prime Minister'.

Anyone who hasn't is completely unqualified to have any opinion on lying, propaganda, misinformation, or the way in which a government actually operates (in contrast to how it is supposed to operate).

I've watched several episodes of "Yes, Minister." Very amusing.

But even assuming it portrays the British government fairly, U.S. government is organized quite differently. Cabinet Secretaries are generally not legislators, but experienced Administrators. (Trump's appointment of crooks and morons like DeVos, Carter, Ross, Perry was anomalous.) There are no "permanent secretaries"; President and Cabinet Secretary appoint most of the top officials.

There is plenty of non-fiction available giving insiders' looks at the U.S. government. The claim made in the quoted excerpt above may be funny, but it isn't truthy.