Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Does the U.S. First Amendment protect lying?

Depending upon the context, the answer is either "no," "yes," or "maybe."

It is beyond question that some lies (e.g., perjury, consumer fraud, filing a false police report, forgery) are not protected by the First Amendment.
18 U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crime to "knowingly ... make any materially false, ficticious or fraudulent statement" to a federal agent. This provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Lies to get money (consumer fraud, etc.) are generally punishable. Are lies to get votes substantially less harmful and, therefore, less deserving of punishment?

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ~ Aldous Huxley

BTW: We do have a constitutional law scholar aboard.

Doesn't restrict your right to free speech, just punishes you if you tell lies whilst doing so.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Doesn't restrict your right to free speech, just punishes you if you tell lies whilst doing so.

So... someone should be reading your mind to prevent you from doing something that is illegal before you do it?

Almost all legal restrictions act in retrospect.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by JPK

Sorry, but the whole "free speech" argument is a misunderstood and overused bunch of horseshit. Yes, people are free to say whatever they want. And, words have consequences.

The limits on Free Speech are already well defined.

This is an attempt at an "end around" to shut down free speech by making it difficult for social media to police...to the point that they get out of the business or shut down a lot of legitimate free speech out of "an abundance of caution" rather than risk huge court judgements.

The truly false and harmful content is already illegal. This an attempt to go after the gray area stuff and realistically, you can expect the enforcement to be highly politicized (ala..."mostly peaceful protestors" vs "domestic terrorists" doing pretty much the same things).

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think that extreme polarization, partisanship and the favouring of misinformation (aka "catechisms") over truth are inevitable outcomes of a rigidly two-party system.

While I would love to break the 2 party system, it's hard to say that's the source of the recent (10-20yrs) of increased polarization. The USA has had a 2 party system over a 100yrs.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Perhaps you could cite those specific cases.

"Mostly Peaceful Protestors"

Vs

"Domestic Terrorists"

Both were violent and destructive (at least small numbers of each). The "Mostly Peaceful Protestors" were cheered on and encouraged. The "Domestic Terrorists" were vilified.

They both should face criminal prosecution but you see a much different response based on who's in power.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

"Mostly Peaceful Protestors"



Vs



"Domestic Terrorists"



Both were violent and destructive (at least small numbers of each). The "Mostly Peaceful Protestors" were cheered on and encouraged. The "Domestic Terrorists" were vilified.



They both should face criminal prosecution but you see a much different response based on who's in power.

One difference between the to is what the group does. Is a group who’s purpose is trouble different than a group where trouble is generated ?
Thoughts

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

One difference between the to is what the group does. Is a group who’s purpose is trouble different than a group where trouble is generated ?
Thoughts

So that puts official BLM and Proud Boys on a par..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

One difference between the to is what the group does. Is a group who’s purpose is trouble different than a group where trouble is generated ?
Thoughts

In both cases, the majority of each group was peacefully protesting.

It was small subsets of each that were violent and destructive.

If there is a difference, it is that one group was allowed to continue their violent and destructive ways for months while the other was quickly crushed.

Purpose is tricky. Who gets to decide the purpose of the "group"?
- In one case, the media, politicians and non-violent group members determined the purpose was "peaceful protesting" and it was taken as such, completely ignoring the violent subset and their purpose because it served their political goals.
- In the other case, the media and politicians decided it was an attempt at the violent overthrow of the govt because it served their political goals...while I'm certain the vast majority never expected to do anything of the sort. Even the small violent subset likely never believed they would overthrow the govt.

Really, there is very little difference in the actions other than the response to them and in both cases the violent and destructive members should be prosecuted.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So... someone should be reading your mind to prevent you from doing something that is illegal before you do it?

Almost all legal restrictions act in retrospect.

Of course the underlying principle here is what has been lost by a certain group of people, and exacerbated by a certain type of 'news' outlet (I've watched friends have their and their families lives ruined from the adoption of the 'principles' advocated by such horror shows); that one of the fundamental precepts of free speech is self-censorship.

Like a 'good' scientist who doesn't publish their work before subjecting it to a rigorous examination for errors, whether inclusive, exclusive, biased, ---whatever---, a 'good' practitioner of free speech will endeavour to ensure the veracity of what they're saying before they say it, and will specifically exclude as much ambiguity and prevarification from their communication as they possibly can.

When 'profit' is the motive (apostrophied because it leaves out the externalities associated with selling biased 'news'), the misinformation angle can at least be understood when evaluating a media outlet's action.

When an a-social media giant uses that model to amass huge amounts of 'money' and power, that use is, at best, mind-bogglingly asinine, and it is incumbent on the government to do whatever is necessary to limit the power to use such models.

There are supposed to be anti-trust laws in the US that could be used, but the purchase of the government by corporate entities, enabled by several recent legislative rulings, may have put paid to that possibility.

One of my 'it would never work solutions' would be that, with any broadcast news media license granted, the licensee who have to operate a given percentage of their news programming ad free, they would face substantial fines for a-factual reporting (yes Kellyann, 'alternative facts' is an oxymoronic phrase; facts do, in fact, exist), and all political campaigning would be based on a system where each candidate had an equal amount of time to make their case at no cost from the media outlet.

Toxic sound-bite advertising and the mentality it engenders bear a huge amount of responsibility for the predicament(s) in which we find ourselves.

Along with human nature, and the unscrupulous manipulation of it by a multitude of bad actors.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

While I would love to break the 2 party system, it's hard to say that's the source of the recent (10-20yrs) of increased polarization. The USA has had a 2 party system over a 100yrs.

Yes, but I think there were all the hallmarks of polarization before the internet; the 60s and 70s, anyone? Social media has certainly had an amplifying effect over these past 2 decades, and both parties have chosen needed to milk the polarization. Votes is votes.

[Personally speaking, the very best service Mr Trump could do for the US is to successfully form a new party. The two-party system would be broken, there would be massive shuffling and realignment from the original two, and Americans would shortly be more likely to vote on policy rather than by tribe or history. More parties = more viewpoints and options offered to voters.
/derail]

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Of course the underlying principle here is what has been lost by a certain group of people, and exacerbated by a certain type of 'news' outlet (I've watched friends have their and their families lives ruined from the adoption of the 'principles' advocated by such horror shows); that one of the fundamental precepts of free speech is self-censorship.

Yes indeed, or as I prefer to put it, rights come with responsibilities. Too many people have forgotten this duality. They pound the table, or the keyboard , and demand, "My rights!" But a too many exercise these rights irresponsibly.

Of course, one of the realities is that there is no such thing as free speech in the private sector. Legal rights are conveyed on citizens, not consumers or capitalists. So one can't claim the right of free speech on Facebook or Twitter, or indeed CF. It doesn't exist.

In the late '90s (I believe... from memory) we had this debate. There were many who argued internet services should be viewed more like a publisher than a common carrier like the phone company. The counter-argument was that this would stymie innovation. This latter argument won the day, leaving platforms like FB free to act solely on their own business interests. And as we know, a business's principle interest is to make as much profit as possible. This is exactly what FB et al. are doing.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

One of my 'it would never work solutions' would be that, with any broadcast news media license granted, the licensee who have to operate a given percentage of their news programming ad free, they would face substantial fines for a-factual reporting (yes Kellyann, 'alternative facts' is an oxymoronic phrase; facts do, in fact, exist), and all political campaigning would be based on a system where each candidate had an equal amount of time to make their case at no cost from the media outlet.

Not sure how it operates in the USA, but in Canada a broadcaster's license does include some minimal standards by which they are accountable to. And advertisers are not allowed to overtly misrepresent their product.

During elections our public broadcaster (CBC) is legally mandated to provide free airtime to all eligible parties. The same does not apply to our private broadcasts though.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Toxic sound-bite advertising and the mentality it engenders bear a huge amount of responsibility for the predicament(s) in which we find ourselves.

Along with human nature, and the unscrupulous manipulation of it by a multitude of bad actors.

Completely agree, but I don't necessarily blame the FBs or all the niche broadcast and cable casters of the world. They are doing what they've been designed and allowed to do. I think the answer is to change the economic incentives by forcing them to pay for the content AND personal information, they take from others.

At the very least this would force them to pay the cost of manipulating all their viewers and users.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In both cases, the majority of each group was peacefully protesting.

It was small subsets of each that were violent and destructive.

I agree that the majority of both groups were/are peaceful protesters.

But the one thing Jan 6 clearly confirmed is that the "Trumpers"/QAnon/white-rights coalition have a deep streak of hate, violence and lawlessness. Prior to that date, I don't think that anyone would have dared draw any parallels between them and BLM. Now that the mask is off, we can see it more clearly.

It's no secret that the US right wing has the better relationship with members of law enforcement and the military. I suspect that this lulled the Capital security people into thinking that the "stolen election" people would just show up, protest loudly, respect the security, and go home, so they didn't put in the same level of security that they would have for a BLM protest (or the Women's March ).

If there had been adequate security, Jan 6 would just have been just another noisy protest and quickly forgotten.

[jimbunyard]

https://youtu.be/tEczkhfLwqM

Started with Goldwater. I was 2.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes, but I think there were all the hallmarks of polarization before the internet; the 60s and 70s, anyone? Social media has certainly had an amplifying effect over these past 2 decades, and both parties have chosen needed to milk the polarization. Votes is votes.

[Personally speaking, the very best service Mr Trump could do for the US is to successfully form a new party. The two-party system would be broken, there would be massive shuffling and realignment from the original two, and Americans would shortly be more likely to vote on policy rather than by tribe or history. More parties = more viewpoints and options offered to voters.
/derail]

I think the social media aspect is overplayed. Likely it is more a changing demographic (60-70's had the babyboomers starting to vote and it was a wild and wooly political period). Today, there is a shift from Rural to Urban and minorities making up increasing percentages of the population.

Starting a 3rd party has been tried before.

Teddy Roosevelt has a lot of similarities to Trump (he was never intended to be president and he really stirred up the political establishment, they gave him the VP role purposely to side line his political career but it backfired) and later he started the Bull Moose Party but it quickly fizzled out.

Ross Perot tried to run as an independent.

These are two of the more successful attempts.

Unlike a parliamentary system, a 3rd party that is more closely aligned with one of the two major parties tends to undermine the party they align more closely to as it splits the votes. If you have two parties that lean liberal, they tend to split the liberal vote while the conservative vote all lines up behind a single conservative candidate (or vice versa).

With a parliamentary system, two liberal parties that control say 60% of the seats would have firm control of the govt with the larger taking the lead and the smaller able to set limits. Of course, there are other issues with parliamentary systems, so that's not a cure all.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

https://youtu.be/tEczkhfLwqM
Started with Goldwater. I was 2.

Further to the “Divided Congress” animation:
“The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives” ~ by Clio Andris et al
“... We quantify the level of cooperation, or lack thereof, between Democrat and Republican Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1949–2012 ...
... We find that despite short-term fluctuations, partisanship or non-cooperation in the U.S. Congress has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing. Yet, a group of representatives continue to cooperate across party lines despite growing partisanship ...”
➥ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0123507