Current Events > The US really needs to set up laws making spreading disinformation a crime.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Anyone who has the platform to be able to reach a nationwide audience should be responsible for ensuring to the best of their ability that what they say is true. Misdemeanor to felony, depending on the level of severity of the disinformation and how intentional it was.

This should've been done in reaction to how McDonalds used the media to spread lies about frivolous lawsuits and the victim of the hot coffee lawsuit. If we had these laws, we'd have an easy way to target Trump and all the GOP idiots that lied about Covid, we'd have stopped Alex Jones before the families even got arrested, and we'd be able to stop a massive amount of the problems in general with weaponized social media.

I agree it is dangerous, but the 1st amendment allows the spreading of lies and misinformation.

Extremely flawed concept to say the least but I know what you're saying about certain nationally reported events like Sandy Hook and Uvalde.

Cheater87 posted...

I agree it is dangerous, but the 1st amendment allows the spreading of lies and misinformation.

Laws can also be made restricting the first amendment so long as it can be shown that the harm of violating the constitution is lesser than the harm caused by allowing the actions. The constitution is not set in stone rules, but rather the values that laws have to be measured against.

I disagree because a lot of people spread disinformation but they believe it's true and not really setting out to be nefarious.

Who determines what is disinformation? This could be weaponized too easily.

Space__Cowboy posted...

Who determines what is disinformation? This could be weaponized too easily.

Exactly.

BestInTheWorId posted...

I disagree because a lot of people spread disinformation but they believe it's true and not really setting out to be nefarious.

Which is fine morally at a small scale, but when your audience is big enough, you have a responsibility to do at least basic fact checking and research. Reporting easily proven disinformation is not ok.

Space__Cowboy posted...

Who determines what is disinformation? This could be weaponized too easily.

Simple. Make the framework for a prosecutor to show that the information given is in fact false, that a reasonable person in their position should've known or been able to discover it was false, and that the disinformation could cause real or potential harm. They make the argument to the jury, the jury decides. You'd have to stretch to make an argument that's weaponizable, or that it's unnecessary.

Violation of first amendment it will never happen

2Pacavelli posted...

Violation of first amendment it will never happen

Already explained why it's not. Probably won't happen, but that's because our government is a joke and hasn't been a democracy in decades.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Make the framework for a prosecutor to show that the information given is in fact false, that a reasonable person in their position should've known or been able to discover it was false, and that the disinformation could cause real or potential harm

Buddy this is already our libel/slander laws.

This is a really really terrible idea, you think people end up in prison for bullshit these days. If you dont believe this would be weaponized you are a fool.

Having the government enforce that is one of the primary reasons North Korea came to be what it is today.

Intro2Logic posted...

Buddy this is already our libel/slander laws.

This isn't libel/slander. There's some crossover, but those laws only target misinformation about other people, I'm talking about disinformation in general. Having this would also make it so people wouldn't have to take up the lawsuit personally - for instance in the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, we could've taken up the case for the grandma, who understandably didn't want to enter into another lawsuit when she didn't really want to do the first one.

Alteres posted...

This is a really really terrible idea, you think people end up in prison for bullshit these days. If you dont believe this would be weaponized you are a fool.

By all means explain how.

lennethsoki posted...

Having the government enforce that is one of the primary reasons North Korea came to be what it is today.

lol no, not even remotely close

Why not put an official Ministry of Truth into place?

They can be the sole authority on what is accepted truth and what is not. If anyone says, writes or thinks otherwise, they get spirited away to the Ministry of Love for correction or have their details put into a memory hole.

Priere posted...

Why not put an official Ministry of Truth into place?

They can be the sole authority on what is accepted truth and what is not. If anyone says, writes or thinks otherwise, they get spirited away to the Ministry of Love for correction or have their details put into a memory hole.

Ah the good ol strawman

When this is brought up, it's usually (but not always of course) people on the side of the people doing all the disinformation going all "OMG 1984!!!". Lies are all the right has.

No. Do you believe the mainstream media/goverment will hold themselves accountable whenever they announce false BS? No, they won't.

This will exclusively target smaller unaffiliated news sites, and individual's.

Southernfatman posted...

When this is brought up, it's usually (but not always of course) people on the side of the people doing all the disinformation going all "OMG 1984!!!". Lies are all the right has.

Yuuuup

Prismsblade posted...

No. Do you believe the mainstream media/goverment will hold themselves accountable whenever they announce false BS? No, they won't.

This will exclusively target smaller unaffiliated news sites, and individual's.

That's an argument for why it won't happen, not why it shouldn't.

Southernfatman posted...

When this is brought up, it's usually (but not always of course) people on the side of the people doing all the disinformation going all "OMG 1984!!!". Lies are all the right has.

This. You can tell by who's salty about it lol

https://i.imgur.com/PflaIk1.png

Rexdragon125 posted...

This. You can tell by who's salty about it lol

https://i.imgur.com/PflaIk1.png

And at least two of his lies all but directly led to people dying. I'm sure more did too.

The GOP loves their white replacement and LGBT are groomers propaganda. Those were popularized by Nazi Germany, and now Nazi propaganda is outlawed there. They're doing pretty well, they're not North Korea, for some strange reason.

I assume that the laws will apply to politicians as well? Who do you think would remain in office?

NeoShadowhen posted...

I assume that the laws will apply to politicians as well? Who do you think would remain in office?

There's a huge difference between saying something incorrect and willfully or negligently spouting misinformation.

If we can't have politicians without them spreading dangerous lies, then we don't need them.

Good intention, bad idea.

We just need to normalize calling people out on their bullshit unapologetically.

We dont need to be nice to someone who is lying to our faces.

The burden should be on the media platforms. They need to amend section 230 of the CDA to make it so social media platforms can be sued as if they are publishers.

That way they will regulate themselves and you wont have some government agency making decisions about what is and isnt misinformation.

AloneIBreak posted...

Good intention, bad idea.

Explain why.

WeAre posted...

We just need to normalize calling people out on their bullshit unapologetically.

We dont need to be nice to someone who is lying to our faces.

That doesn't stop the harm the misinformation does.

whitelytning posted...

The burden should be on the media platforms. They need to amend section 230 of the CDA to make it so social media platforms can be sued as if they are publishers.

No. The burden lies on the individual. It isn't just social media platforms that are the problem, and they cannot reasonably monitor every post.

whitelytning posted...

government agency making decisions about what is and isnt misinformation.

This is not what I'm suggesting. Nobody decides what's misinformation, it either is or isn't.

In your own example you suggested a jury would decide.

Let's amplify it a bit and make the punishment harsher for people in positions of power.

If you're in a government position, regardless of political affiliation, spreading potentially dangerous misinformation results in immediate removal from your position and forfeiture from ever holding a position of power ever again.

Call me cynical, but do people seriously believe that the government wouldn't just jail anyone not fitting the narrative of what the "truth" is?

Like really? We already have the risk of becoming a social pariah by revealing uncomfortable truths about our society.

I can't even talk about how our nutritional guides are trash without people getting uneasy.

There should definitely be ways to report / flag posts and content for mis/disinformation.

For example Twitter had it correct with COVID posts and flagging them for misinformation when it happened.

If a post is reported enough for misinformation, there should be dedicated staff to verify the integrity of the content (fact checkers) and add an appropriate banner with the fact check results.

Unfortunately that takes time and resources for little to no financial gain which is a no no in capitalist America.

Strider102 posted...

Let's amplify it a bit and make the punishment harsher for people in positions of power.

If you're in a government position, regardless of political affiliation, spreading potentially dangerous misinformation results in immediate removal from your position and forfeiture from ever holding a position of power ever again.

I'm down.

_Krave_ posted...

Call me cynical, but do people seriously believe that the government wouldn't just jail anyone not fitting the narrative of what the "truth" is?

They'd have to repeatedly convince a jury that their lie is fact, so not likely.

_Krave_ posted...

Like really? We already have the risk of becoming a social pariah by revealing uncomfortable truths about our society.

No we don't.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This covers more than libel or slander, and would also allow the government to take up libel or slander cases when the victim doesn't want to personally do a lawsuit.

LotsOfHorror posted...

No we don't.

Troll flopic

_Krave_ posted...

Troll flopic

Still not.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Laws can also be made restricting the first amendment so long as it can be shown that the harm of violating the constitution is lesser than the harm caused by allowing the actions. The constitution is not set in stone rules, but rather the values that laws have to be measured against.

That's not how that works

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

That's not how that works

It is.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

There's multiple instances of laws that run afoul of constitutional law that are allowed because of a demonstrated need. There's laws against libel and slander, rulings allowing prisons to discriminate based on sex, laws regulating what news agencies can and can't say - this is nothing new, and there is absolutely a demonstrated need as social media fundamentally changes society.

This would be decided at a trial, not by a panel of scientists.

People are taking that into account, and they do know who juries are made of right?

Alteres posted...

This would be decided at a trial, not by a panel of scientists.

People are taking that into account, and they do know who juries are made of right?

I've literally said this directly and still get people crying it'll be weaponized without saying how.

No it doesnt. Freedom of speech yo. If they pull some shit prove them wrong. If you start resteicting liberties it gets ugly fast. Why are some liberals so eager for that govt bootheel its baffling.

LotsOfHorror posted...

I've literally said this directly and still get people crying it'll be weaponized without saying how.

It's rightwingers projecting their desire to round up and exterminate their political opponents
-Van_Zan- posted...

No it doesnt. Freedom of speech yo. If they pull some shit prove them wrong. If you start resteicting liberties it gets ugly fast. Why are some liberals so eager for that govt bootheel its baffling.

For example

-Van_Zan- posted...

No it doesnt. Freedom of speech yo. If they pull some shit prove them wrong. If you start resteicting liberties it gets ugly fast. Why are some liberals so eager for that govt bootheel its baffling.

No, it's needed.

So is there going to be a court hearing for every accusation of misinformation lol