Free speech is too dangerous to continue?

[Foxfyre]

Nope and never said anything of the sort.

It seems you're crafting a strawman.

Not at all a strawman. What is the difference between Donald Trump and the Republicans deciding what is and is not disinformation and Kamala Harris and the Democrats deciding what is and is not disinformation?

That's the situation we have if we do away with free speech.

 

[Marener]

Not at all a strawman. What is the difference between Donald Trump and the Republicans deciding what is and is not disinformation and Kamala Harris and the Democrats deciding what is and is not disinformation?

That's the situation we have if we do away with free speech.

Everyone is allowed their opinion on what is and isn't disinformation.

The government never told social media what they can and can't have on their websites.

 

[WEATHER53]

Lib loon Dems want to be free to j indoctrinate the simple minded to their cause but want to prohibit discussion or disputing to the contrary l

 

[WEATHER53]

Everyone is allowed their opinion on what is and isn't disinformation.

The government never told social media what they can and can't have on their

Dem government is selling we don’t have the ability to distinguish true from false therefore that effort is to be prohibited because they will do it for us. For our own good of course.
It’s insidiously sinister

 

[hadit]

Exactly.

And when they no longer hold them, resort to weeping and wailing about how unfair it all is.

 

[Marener]

Dem government is selling we don’t have the ability to distinguish true from false therefore that effort is to be prohibited because they will do it for us. For our own good of course.
It’s insidiously sinister

This bears no semblance to reality.

You guys really have lost the ability to differentiate true and false. True is what you want to believe. False is anything you don’t want to believe.

 

[WEATHER53]

This bears no semblance to reality.

You guys really have lost the ability to differentiate true and false. True is what you want to believe. False is anything you don’t want to believe.

Absolutely what the “misinformation” edicts are all about

 

[Foxfyre]

Everyone is allowed their opinion on what is and isn't disinformation.

The government never told social media what they can and can't have on their websites.

Zuckerberg and others have admitted under oath that they were pressured by the Democrats to suppress certain information leading up to the 2020 election and since. The Democrat controlled MSM has been routinely doing that for years now, not by law but by choice. The small minority of media/social media still offering different information is a constant thorn in their side.

What John Kerry is suggesting is the they be able by law to suppress 'disinformation' meaning they should be able to control whatever message they want the people to receive. That would shut down any opposing information from all all sources.

Are you in support of that in the interest of 'protecting the people from disinformation?'

If so who should have the power to decide what is and what is not disinformation?

Or perhaps the First Amendment should be protected and trust the people themselves to sort out what is and is not true?

 

[22lcidw]

Conservatives love talking about “questioning” but then they see a third hand rumor on Facebook about Haitians stealing cats to eat and they treat it as fact.

How do you explain that?

Progs are the congenital liars. Joe is the colorful proof of it. In his installation and his actions once installed.

 

[JustAGuy1]

People living in their own little delusional worlds where they only get information from social media that is filled with false information is dangerous to the country.

I'm not saying what the answer should be, but the problem with misinformation is clearly there.

We used to think that with enough speech, the truth will win out. That's just not the case in this day and age.

This requires you to believe that only your side tells the truth, that is patently stupid.

 

[Marener]

Absolutely what the “misinformation” edicts are all about

Just pointing out the problem. Do you think the country is stable and thriving if a large chunk of the population falsely believes that the justice system is corrupt because they prosecute criminals in your political tribe?

 

[Marener]

This requires you to believe that only your side tells the truth, that is patently stupid.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don’t.

I know that many conservatives and especially MAGA have become almost totally unmoored from reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

And when they no longer hold them, resort to weeping and wailing about how unfair it all is.

I have no idea whatsoever of what you are saying. Care to clarify?

 

[Marener]

Zuckerberg and others have admitted under oath that they were pressured by the Democrats to suppress certain information leading up to the 2020 election and since. The Democrat controlled MSM has been routinely doing that for years now, not by law but by choice. The small minority of media/social media still offering different information is a constant thorn in their side.

What John Kerry is suggesting is the they be able by law to suppress 'disinformation' meaning they should be able to control whatever message they want the people to receive. That would shut down any opposing information from all all sources.

Are you in support of that in the interest of 'protecting the people from disinformation?'

If so who should have the power to decide what is and what is not disinformation?

Or perhaps the First Amendment should be protected and trust the people themselves to sort out what is and is not true?

Pressure is not the same as force. Moreover, Facebook sought out the government to help with policing disinformation on Facebook. At the time, they knew that misinformation was killing people and they felt responsible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just pointing out the problem. Do you think the country is stable and thriving if a large chunk of the population falsely believes that the justice system is corrupt because they prosecute criminals in your political tribe?

Or the problem with a weaponized government unethically and in many cases illegally prosecuting political opponents. Should nobody be able to object to that?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

But you want me to believe that reporting on something in 2017 affected the election held in 2016?

No, 2020.

 

[Marener]

Or the problem with a weaponized government unethically and in many cases illegally prosecuting political opponents. Should nobody be able to object to that?

They shouldn’t lie about it. It is not unethical or illegal to convict people who have committed crimes.

 

[Marener]

No, 2020.

Was not an issue in 2020 as it had been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pressure is not the same as force. Moreover, Facebook sought out the government to help with policing disinformation on Facebook. At the time, they knew that misinformation was killing people and they felt responsible.

Zuckerberg admitted they complied with the government pressure to suppress information that turned out to be absolutely correct but was inconvenient/embarrassing to the Democrats.

And a small minority of communication organizations were able to get good information out there.

John Kerry wants to shut down that small minority and give the government the power to dictate the message that the media/social media et al is allowed to provide.

Again are you good with that if the Democrats are out of power?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don’t.

I know that many conservatives and especially MAGA have become almost totally unmoored from reality.

No, you've decided what "reality" should be and any deviation from that is "disinformation". You'll quote CNN, Raw Story and kos all day believing it to be true. I'll never quote FOX or any MSM crap.