Obviously whoever is going to make the decision on what is "misinformation" and what's not, has always been right... and can never, ever, ever have ulterior motives.
All good. Nothing to see here.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
218 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
3563 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
USA was built on ulterior motives so there's nothing new. WMDs, genocide and false propaganda are all on the table. It just depends if the country allies with US interests. Saudi Arabia? free to use slaves, anyone else? they're going to feel what freedom feels like. War crimes? You ain't seen nothing yet, my boy…
So what exactly do they define as “misinformation”?
Demonstrably false foreign propaganda? Lies about the time, place, and results of elections? Medical advice that can be lethal if followed?
Don't forget revenge porn, which was already illegal but gets Republicans really mad when it's of Hunter Biden but also taken down.
It's not "revenge porn" if the images have already been leaked. Just like it's not espionage to report on information already leaked.
Is that true with revenge porn? Because with, for example, child porn, it's not like they're only going after the people making it but also the people distributing it.
Another, more analogous example: Most of those old celebrity leaks (fappening) are illegal content to host/distribute, which is why sites wouldn't/couldn't allow it even if it would drive up user traffic. (Afaik)
yes, the government would never wield that power in a self serving way.
You can say the same thing about any government power. Or about government just existing. Or about human beings just existing.
Denying people the opportunity to act in bad faith isn't a strategy, not even a bad one.
You got close there.
This is of course the problem with regulations on free speech. Any measures designed with the best of intentions are inevitably abused by future leaders. People need to imagine what Trump would do with this power.
Really important both with the Gaza situation and the upcoming election
They're already lying about Gaza:
White House clarifies Biden's claim he saw photos of terrorists beheading children in Israel-Hamas war
The "clarification" of course is that he lied about seeing the pictures.
In fact, no one has seen them.
In general, if you think that the government should have a new or increased power (in this case deciding the “truth” of what people say online) you must consider how this power will be used when a government you do not agree with is eventually elected. They will still have that power, so how do you think they will use it?
We should just do nothing in case sentient wallabies get elected and force us all to get marsupial reassignment surgery
My main issue is the US considers Israel bad misinformation
The Ministry Of Truth has been sanctioned