Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[oldbadger]

I think that it was the Old Testament that said freedom for me but not for thee. The new was more like do unto others and so on.

Have you never read Colossians, Ephesians, Titus and Timothy?

Colossians 4:1 "You masters, treat your slaves in a righteous and fair way, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them

1 Timothy 6:1-2 Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants[a] regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.

I wish the US had a third world voting system, it is much harder to cheat. Here we have voting machines that run on proprietary software that nobody is allowed to inspect. In my first computer course in High School we learned how to write a program that does simple counting, it is not complicated. But hiding fraud can be very complicated, you need all sorts of obfuscations plus a program that can self delete after the election or if it senses that someone is about to inspect it etc.

It seems as if it has, according to you.
Was the same equipment used in the elections that raised up Former President Trump?

My father and his friends voted for Nixon, it was a law and order thing.

Nixon got in to so much trouble he had to resign, didn't he?
I live far from your shores and whenever most of us hear that name we equate it with dishonour and crime.

That was my advice to Trump, suspend all elections till the covid emergency order is lifted (for the common good). I personally don't believe in voting, at least 90% of the voters have no clue about any issue, they make up their minds based on 60 second advertisements. It is like asking for a train wreck. I don't think that there will ever be a good way to govern the population, especially given a society where half the people want the the government to solve all their problems and the other half wants the government to just get out of the way.

So the Covid Emergency Order was initiated during Trump's Presidency......OK

I don't want the private media companies policing their websites, just the opposite, let people speak. And let the press report the news, and don't suppress people that they disagree with. Put it all out there and let the people decide who is the telling the truth and who is deceiving the public.

But you want the press to be policed!
This is looking a bit wonky.

If you were Biden, and you got a phone call from Putin saying that some of his military had gone rogue, wanting to destroy the world, and will soon be launching nuclear weapons at all the major cities in the US. And you have about 20 to 60 minutes before this happens, would you launch a counterstrike at Russia and kill millions of innocent people? I think that Biden's hands are tied, he would have to launch the missiles, that is why we have them.

If you were Trump, what would you do in such a situation?

It is the same with our guns, all the gun owners hope that they will never be used against our own government, but if the government goes rogue, then our hands are tied, we would have to remove the despots from power. I think that we have already gone to that point. If we were to hang every politician, that violated the Nuremberg code, by the neck (after a fair trial) we would run out of lamposts to hang them from. Some may object saying that the Nuremberg code was only for German war criminals. But I say it still applies to our covid war criminals as well.

The emergency orders were initiated by President Trump, yes?
But in any case, are you telling me that you would like to publicly execute various politicians?

We are at war, and if they declare another pandemic then we need to force these people out of power immediately, this covid pandemic was a deliberate act of war against all the peoples of the world and we need to act before it becomes too late to do anything. We know that they are guilty because they are hiding the data and covering up as much evidence as they can, and our news organizations are only gaslighting the masses.

Imagine that, The USA locked back in to a civil war, where it looks as if you would want your side to execute past leaders, police news organisations but stop private media owners from moderating content on their websites.

What a mess.

[oldbadger]

If you built up a media company, a vast chat-room with a news service as well, surely you would want to control or moderate what happens on that site?

I wouldn't. I would prefer a world where there are restrictions I can do with my own things for the sake of fairness. I honestly, truly, want a fair world, though I recognise that I am in the extreme minority. Just like if I was Alexander the Great and built up a country I wouldn't want to oppress people either. Rather, I wouldn't want to be permitted to.

Would you let members on a website of yours provoke others to commit hate crimes, for instance?
I cannot believe that you would allow that kind of thing.
And if you held a street survey I think that nearly everybody would tell you that they want a fair world.
And we are talking about private ownership of a media company, not Genghis Khan!

Your story demonstrates that governments are easily corruptible.

My story demonstrated how the UK's Constitution is strong.

[historia]

You keep trying to locate the problem elsewhere, but it is the First Amendment itself that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

I think that you are right, the First Amendment itself contains a problem that the founding fathers did not anticipate.

I'm glad you now recognize that your position is the one against the First Amendment.

It never occurred to them that bad actors would be able to control the free press and social media.

Nonsense. The press in colonial times was far more partisan and propagandistic than it is today.

We live in a time of unprecedented freedom and access to information. If you're at the point where you think our country is on the brink of disaster because a couple of websites deleted content you like, then it's time to put down the Internet and go outside. Touch some grass.

My position is that we need to expand our first amendment rights to include big monopolies like social media

"Social media" includes a number of competing companies, so cannot be called a monopoly.

Technically they can be called an oligopoly, since they do not compete.

No, they absolutely do compete for advertising revenue.

Just ask Elon Musk, who recognizes that he has to moderate content on Twitter -- especially extremist political content -- in order to attract advertisers, who quite reasonably don't want their ads running next to neo-Nazis spouting racist nonsense, and will take their advertising money elsewhere if that is the case.

I am not trying for debater of the year, so I don't worry about my arguments looking weak

But aren't you trying to convince people?

This whole argument that the Jews -- err, I mean, global business elites -- have hoodwinked the governments of the world and are about to launch some kind of genocide or enslavement of the population has been around for centuries. It's nothing new, and entirely unconvincing.

That was my advice to Trump, suspend all elections till the covid emergency order is lifted (for the common good). I personally don't believe in voting, at least 90% of the voters have no clue about any issue, they make up their minds based on 60 second advertisements.

if the government goes rogue, then our hands are tied, we would have to remove the despots from power. I think that we have already gone to that point. If we were to hang every politician, that violated the Nuremberg code, by the neck (after a fair trial) we would run out of lamposts to hang them from. Some may object saying that the Nuremberg code was only for German war criminals. But I say it still applies to our covid war criminals as well.

Well that escalated quickly.

In one post you went from vaccine hesitancy to calling for the suspension of elections, saying you don't believe in voting, and that politicians you disagree with should be hanged -- all the while, again, imagining that your position is the one opposed to tyranny!

I mean seriously, man, this is just textbook fascism. Surely you don't believe this?

[Purple Knight]

Would you let members on a website of yours provoke others to commit hate crimes, for instance?
I cannot believe that you would allow that kind of thing.

I wouldn't particularly want that on my website, no. I also would not want the ability to silence it, if that ability could also be used to silence opinions I don't like and cancel people for disagreeing with me.

I would feel culpable for allowing it. However, I don't think Verizon is culpable if someone incites during a phone call so I'm going to have to reexamine that, since I can't derive a positive obligation to prevent a crime.

And if you held a street survey I think that nearly everybody would tell you that they want a fair world.

They don't actually want a fair world, though. If you question them more deeply you start to understand this. Every last one of them wishes to be dominant and would not wish any restrictions on himself if he was dominant. People invent games to justify why it's out of bounds when people stomp on them, and in bounds when they stomp on others. In reality we're in a state of nature where anyone can stomp on anyone, it's all in bounds, and the only question is whether, because you want to stomp on someone, a bigger boot is going to come down on you first.

How I think it "ought to be" is irrelevant unless there are enough of me to do something about it and there aren't. The vast majority of people will howl and scream and cry foul if hit by a club, but will grit their teeth and cry fair play, good shot, instead... if that club has the words "private property" printed on it. They do this because each envisions that one day he will hold that club, and he doesn't want any restrictions on himself when he does.

And we are talking about private ownership of a media company, not Genghis Khan!

Then let's just rebrand the government "the corporation" like they do in every sci-fi dystopia and get it over with. Now they have a right to do whatever they want, to whoever they want, as long as they don't punch anybody (and maybe if they do, as long as it was in a TOS they made you agree to, to live on their property).

[oldbadger]

I wouldn't particularly want that on my website, no. I also would not want the ability to silence it, if that ability could also be used to silence opinions I don't like and cancel people for disagreeing with me.
I would feel culpable for allowing it. However, I don't think Verizon is culpable if someone incites during a phone call so I'm going to have to reexamine that, since I can't derive a positive obligation to prevent a crime.

Then your web-site would not last too long, I'm thinking.
A young man takes a picture of some girls in a shower and stuffs it up on a media site, or an ex boyfriend publishes photos of his naked ex girlfriend to get back at her, and you have no ability to stop these, yet feel culpable if, say, they cause a suicide.

Another example.......Are you saying that you disagree with moderation on this forum? Do you think that people should aloowed to join the forum and then stuff retail adverts all over it?

They don't actually want a fair world, though. If you question them more deeply you start to understand this. Every last one of them wishes to be dominant and would not wish any restrictions on himself if he was dominant. People invent games to justify why it's out of bounds when people stomp on them, and in bounds when they stomp on others. In reality we're in a state of nature where anyone can stomp on anyone, it's all in bounds, and the only question is whether, because you want to stomp on someone, a bigger boot is going to come down on you first.

This begins to look as if you would do bad things to people if you could get away with it.
Would you like to be protected from being stomped upon yourself?

Idea:- Let's have rules and laws, and support them.

How I think it "ought to be" is irrelevant unless there are enough of me to do something about it and there aren't. The vast majority of people will howl and scream and cry foul if hit by a club, but will grit their teeth and cry fair play, good shot, instead... if that club has the words "private property" printed on it. They do this because each envisions that one day he will hold that club, and he doesn't want any restrictions on himself when he does.

Do you think that you are righteous and decent but that they, the vast majority, are not? Then you need tio have rules and laws to protect you and others from 'them'.

Then let's just rebrand the government "the corporation" like they do in every sci-fi dystopia and get it over with. Now they have a right to do whatever they want, to whoever they want, as long as they don't punch anybody (and maybe if they do, as long as it was in a TOS they made you agree to, to live on their property).

Where you live that maybe true, but where I live our system got rid of a new leader who thought she could do whatever she wanted in a very short time.

[Purple Knight]

Then your web-site would not last too long, I'm thinking.
A young man takes a picture of some girls in a shower and stuffs it up on a media site, or an ex boyfriend publishes photos of his naked ex girlfriend to get back at her, and you have no ability to stop these, yet feel culpable if, say, they cause a suicide.

Another example.......Are you saying that you disagree with moderation on this forum? Do you think that people should allowed to join the forum and then stuff retail adverts all over it?

I think that would be horrible. Now this is just my own valuation and I do admit I'm in the vast minority here, but my valuation is that it is less horrible than people having the ability to stop that flood of ads, if that ability could also be used to silence people for having the wrong opinions or disagreeing with them. I would prefer to have a fair debate floor, where everyone can be heard even if the people who have power think they're foolish, even if I have to scroll through 20 pages of ads. Even if I had to give up both legs, honestly. I would even put my life in place of that suicide, to make it square, if I could.

This begins to look as if you would do bad things to people if you could get away with it.
Would you like to be protected from being stomped upon yourself?

I don't claim that everything I would do to others would be seen as good. Much would not. If I were dictator I would protect the minority opinions from censure, whatever I had to do. I wouldn't care if I had to kill people. I wouldn't care if it was a lot of them. To me, life has no meaning if what we must think and say to stay alive is predetermined by someone else, and I don't particularly care if that status quo came about from pure private property rights.

But do I want to be protected? Nope. In that situation, and because I'm in the extreme minority, the People would rightly rise up and dethrone me, and I would consider that right and just. It's why I know I don't deserve to be dictator. I know that would happen in advance, and it should happen.

Do you think that you are righteous and decent but that they, the vast majority, are not? Then you need to have rules and laws to protect you and others from 'them'.

No. I don't think this is a matter of right and wrong. If anything they're more righteous because if they get their way, fewer people have to live under rules they reject and in a way that they hate. The one thing I can call them on is being inconsistent about what to do when someone is in the minority, ideologically. But I don't think that matters as far as who is in the right. No one is in the right.

What I will say though is that America used to be how I and Daedalus liked it, and people made an effort to change it, and they did change it. There is no one anymore who disagrees with what you say but defends to the death your right to say it. Everyone believes that if what you say is stupid you should just be cancelled.

But, would it be so wrong if everyone who likes it one way got to live together under the rules they like, and everyone else also got that opportunity? What would it hurt if we had tyrannically enforced ideological freedom land, and a cancel culture bully land? There should be a cancel culture land. People clearly want that. I would prefer everybody got to live how they liked. It might just be speculation, but perhaps the people in cancel land wouldn't like it so much if they had no one to cancel. This is seemingly a binary split, isn't it? And if everyone in the minority view moved away to where their views are protected by tyranny and cancel land ate itself because the only thing keeping them together is their mob-and-attack mentality, it would serve them right. I don't know that will happen, but since it might - since absolute private property rights and bully culture might be entirely parasitic, kept alive only by the fact that they have people to bully - I think that the true ideal is that both ways should have a chance.

Where you live that maybe true, but where I live our system got rid of a new leader who thought she could do whatever she wanted in a very short time.

You got rid of them because they were called a leader, their power was called government power, and how they got it happened to be an election. But if something is called a corporation, they can have the exact same power over you and you'll call it legitimate. I don't have a beef with that, I will call it more righteous for you to have your way (again, if anything, and only because fewer people are hurt; I don't believe there's a fundamental right and wrong here) but it really is just definition.

[Daedalus X]

Have you never read Colossians, Ephesians, Titus and Timothy?

Colossians 4:1 "You masters, treat your slaves in a righteous and fair way, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them

1 Timothy 6:1-2 Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants[a] regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.

I can't say that I have never read those verses, but it has been a while since I did.

Those verses may have been used by slave owners to justify slavery, but I don't see them as an endorsement of slavery anymore than the county department of health giving out free needles is an endorsement of drug abuse. The writers of the Bible lived in a society where slavery was the norm, and the idea of abolishing it was no more on there minds than abolishing the eating of meat is in our day. So their advice was just "this is the way world is, and this is the way to deal with it".

Was the same equipment used in the elections that raised up Former President Trump?

I think that it was the same machines, but Hillary and all the pollsters were so confident the Hillary would win in a landslide that they felt the risk and effort to pull of a cheat was not going to be necessary.

Nixon got in to so much trouble he had to resign, didn't he?
I live far from your shores and whenever most of us hear that name we equate it with dishonour and crime.

Watergate is an interesting story that the American press never investigated, beyond pinning it on Nixon. (he was the Trump of his day)
I still want to know what the plan was, did the burglars know what they were looking for or was this just a fishing expedition? Did it have anything to do with Nixon's involvement in the JFK assassination?
To be fair to Nixon, he did not do anything worse than Obama spying on the Trump campaign.

So the Covid Emergency Order was initiated during Trump's Presidency......OK

Yes, it was, and that will be remembered as his biggest blunder along with the fact that he is still pushing the kill shot.

If you were Trump, what would you do in such a situation?

I would push the button, duty demands it.

But in any case, are you telling me that you would like to publicly execute various politicians?

We killed Nazis for violating the Nuremberg code, it would be unfair to them if we do not execute our own politicians who committed the same crimes.

Imagine that, The USA locked back in to a civil war, where it looks as if you would want your side to execute past leaders, police news organisations but stop private media owners from moderating content on their websites.

What a mess.

Not just a civil war, but WW3 also. And it is not like all the wars that came before, this is fifth-generation warfare.

[Daedalus X]

Nonsense. The press in colonial times was far more partisan and propagandistic than it is today.

We live in a time of unprecedented freedom and access to information. If you're at the point where you think our country is on the brink of disaster because a couple of websites deleted content you like, then it's time to put down the Internet and go outside. Touch some grass.

Maybe the founding fathers could foresee a day when all the major news and social networks would be controlled by one cohesive faction, and this faction would be able to suppress any information that went against their own narrative. And these people would collude with big Pharma to develop a plot to kill large segments of the population for big profits. If they did foresee this event, the idea that they would be fine with this, is an extremely perplexing situation to me. That the large corporations could use their first amendment rights to destroy the citizenry.

Just ask Elon Musk, who recognizes that he has to moderate content on Twitter -- especially extremist political content -- in order to attract advertisers, who quite reasonably don't want their ads running next to neo-Nazis spouting racist nonsense, and will take their advertising money elsewhere if that is the case.

In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie. They felt that we do not need to defend the speech that we all like, we need to defend the speech that nobody likes, or else we don't have free speech, we would only be free to speak things that we all like. Why even call that free speech?

We have all seen this movie, it did not end well. First they came for the neo-Nazis...

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

This whole argument that the Jews -- err, I mean, global business elites -- have hoodwinked the governments of the world and are about to launch some kind of genocide or enslavement of the population has been around for centuries. It's nothing new, and entirely unconvincing.

They have not "hoodwinked the governments of the world", they have penetrated or infiltrated the governments from the top on down.

if the government goes rogue, then our hands are tied, we would have to remove the despots from power. I think that we have already gone to that point. If we were to hang every politician, that violated the Nuremberg code, by the neck (after a fair trial) we would run out of lamposts to hang them from. Some may object saying that the Nuremberg code was only for German war criminals. But I say it still applies to our covid war criminals as well.

In one post you went from vaccine hesitancy to calling for the suspension of elections, saying you don't believe in voting, and that politicians you disagree with should be hanged -- all the while, again, imagining that your position is the one opposed to tyranny!

Why would you think that there is an equivalence between "politician, that violated the Nuremberg code" and "politicians you disagree with"?

I don't believe in apple pie either. But, I never did understand why voting is so important. I think that even a lottery where every healthy citizen has an equal chance of becoming the next president would be preferable, because most people are generally decent and honest. But people who aspire to the powerful office of the presidency tend to be dishonest and narcissistic, so the odds of a bad actor winning are very high.

[oldbadger]

Then your web-site would not last too long, I'm thinking.
A young man takes a picture of some girls in a shower and stuffs it up on a media site, or an ex boyfriend publishes photos of his naked ex girlfriend to get back at her, and you have no ability to stop these, yet feel culpable if, say, they cause a suicide.

Another example.......Are you saying that you disagree with moderation on this forum? Do you think that people should allowed to join the forum and then stuff retail adverts all over it?

I think that would be horrible. Now this is just my own valuation and I do admit I'm in the vast minority here, but my valuation is that it is less horrible than people having the ability to stop that flood of ads, if that ability could also be used to silence people for having the wrong opinions or disagreeing with them. I would prefer to have a fair debate floor, where everyone can be heard even if the people who have power think they're foolish, even if I have to scroll through 20 pages of ads. Even if I had to give up both legs, honestly. I would even put my life in place of that suicide, to make it square, if I could.

OK, so you don't mind things like tv programs being constantly interrupted with adverts....... Am I right?

But we're going to have to disagree about website and forum policing, I'm afraid.

[oldbadger]

This begins to look as if you would do bad things to people if you could get away with it.
Would you like to be protected from being stomped upon yourself?

I don't claim that everything I would do to others would be seen as good. Much would not. If I were dictator I would protect the minority opinions from censure, whatever I had to do. I wouldn't care if I had to kill people. I wouldn't care if it was a lot of them. To me, life has no meaning if what we must think and say to stay alive is predetermined by someone else, and I don't particularly care if that status quo came about from pure private property rights.

But do I want to be protected? Nope. In that situation, and because I'm in the extreme minority, the People would rightly rise up and dethrone me, and I would consider that right and just. It's why I know I don't deserve to be dictator. I know that would happen in advance, and it should happen.

Hang on....... Are you saying that if you were dictator you would insist on free and open speech/pics on all media websites, but that you would be prepared to kill lots of folks who moderated their private websites?

*shivers*