Current Events > Intentionally spreading disinformation through a large media influence should be

(+) Yeah! (+)

A felony.

Things like pil execs lying for years about climate change, Trump pushing bad covid cures, Alex Jones and Joe Rogan regarding Sandy Hook, McDonald's and the hot coffee lady, etc etc.

You should not be able to brazenly lie with a massive following like that, you should be held responsible for your words.

I recall in Australia they recently said they were cracking down on disinformation campaigns, but Rupert Murdoch came from here, so well see.

Dark_Arbron posted...

I recall in Australia they recently said they were cracking down on disinformation campaigns, but Rupert Murdoch came from here, so well see.

More countries need to do it, do any have laws to combat this? Because at this point it's decades past due.

Should've been done after McDonald's showed how dangerous and effective it could be, people still believe that grandma was the one at fault

The only reason I can't support this idea is because the Republicans (and other right-wing parties elsewhere in the world) have enough power now that they could easily use it to make being opposed to them on any position a felony.

This is something we should have done long ago, to stop the GOP from rising to power in the first place, but now, I can only see it being used as a cudgel against anything even remotely left-leaning.

SpawnShadow posted...

The only reason I can't support this idea is because the Republicans (and other right-wing parties elsewhere in the world) have enough power now that they could easily use it to make being opposed to them on any position a felony.

This is something we should have done long ago, to stop the GOP from rising to power in the first place, but now, I can only see it being used as a cudgel against anything even remotely left-leaning.

No they literally couldn't.

We're not talking about things some random politician claims is a lie. Were talking about things that are proven lies, and we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt the groups or people in question knee they were a lie.

RuneterranSnap posted...

No they literally couldn't.

We're not talking about things some random politician claims is a lie. Were talking about things that are proven lies, and we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt the groups or people in question knee they were a lie

Those who control media control the truth. Elon Musk could very well declare climate change to be a hoax. Who's gonna stop him? He can make saying anything about climate change against the tou of Twitter. It's not right, but nobody's gonna stop him.

It sucks people can say whatever they want, but the alternative is the truth is just as likely to be censored as the lie.

LeCh0nk posted...

Those who control media control the truth. Elon Musk could very well declare climate change to be a hoax. Who's gonna stop him? He can make saying anything about climate change against the tou of Twitter. It's not right, but nobody's gonna stop him.

It sucks people can say whatever they want, but the alternative is the truth is just as likely to be censored as the lie.

Literally all that would haooen in your example would be people calling out Musk for denying climate change, and we'd potentially have an avenue to jail him if these laws were in place.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Were talking about things that are proven lies, and we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt the groups or people in question knee they were a lie.

There's the rub. It's pretty damn hard to prove someone knew something and it's very easy to claim you didn't know. The former of which, pretty sure, is already illegal. Alex Jones got pretty thoroughly wrecked for his Sandy Hook mess.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

So not what we're talking about and not relevant to the discussion, got it.

This will work out in favor of whatever government is instituting such a law. The problem is that it is the US government.

I dont see this actually doing anything in any country Rupert Murdoch is allowed to operate in

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I do. You don't understand what I'm proposing.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I do. You don't.

I agree. Nothing criminally happening to the networks and people who have been proven to knowingly push election fraud BS is disheartening

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Irrelevant.

None of what I'm talking about are things people "consider" to be lies. They are factually lies.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It is, and since you can't seem to move past that fact you're done in this discussion.

RuneterranSnap posted...

None of what I'm talking about are things people "consider" to be lies. They are factually lies.

Who decides what facts are?

Intro2Logic posted...

Who decides what facts are?

TC obviously

At least until he gets purged again

Intro2Logic posted...

Who decides what facts are?

Nobody. Facts simply are facts.

I think if there was a way to objectively and legally gauge the negative impact of the things people say in such spaces , and prove it was the intent, and charged for that result - not the saying of whatever..

.. but that could also be a double edged sword. So, idk. I'd be cool with a new constitution that puts some limitations on freedom of speech (freedom to bullshit for the most part in modern days) among other things but not one written by the current people in government.