Like many things that the APL, in this case specifically Biden, does I wonder if they really think things through before they impliment a policy.
It was just announced that the DHS is getting a new department that will censor "disinformation". I especially liked the director's little video where she sang about the mission of this new department to the tune of Supercalifragelistic... from Mary Poppins. That is exactly the kind of wise, mature, governance y'all voted for, right?
Here's where I question the wisdom of this thing.
1. Do Biden and his minions not realize that eventually this commission will be controlled by someone who's not APL?
2. Do Biden and his minions not realize that this is going to get tied up in court immediately, and likely get overturned at some point?
3. Do Biden and his minions think that "disinformation" only comes from one side of the ideological spectrum? Does anyone expect this department to pursue leftist "disinformation" as much s "rightist"?
4. What about "disinformation" that was later proven to be True?
5. Given the reality that we had NEGATIVE economic growth last quarter, and that a second quarter like that means we're in a recession, is "disinformtion" really the most pressing problem for the executive branch?
6. Given the reality that the Biden administration massive injection of printed money into the economy is part of what's driving the horrible economic news, should we really trust their ability to handle anything?
7. Isn't free speech protected even when it's inaccurate, or offensive?
8. This appears to be driven by Elon Musk (an African American) purchasing Twitter (a private company) and announcing that he thinks that Twitter should offer more freedom of speech rather than less. Why is a private company opening up their platform to more legal, protected, free speech a problem?
9 Do y'all realize that just because you might be "offended", that it doesn't mean that whatever "offended" you should be censored?
10. Orwell is looking more and more like a prophet.
11. Law enforcement limiting, censoring, or punishing free speech seems like a bad idea.
5 comments:
1. As long as conservatives actually address actual misinformation, I'm fine with that.
2. As long as they're addressing actual disinformation (ie, Trump ACTUALLY lost the election and claims to the opposite are literally disinformation), I can't imagine why the court would intervene.
3. Probably they don't think that. You see, we WANT any liberal disinformation stopped just as much as conservative disinformation. But they probably do recognize how VERY widespread and out of hand it is in modern conservatism. Unfortunately. Do you?
5. Given how dangerous the widespread disinformation about election integrity or attacks on the press are, I sure HOPE they realize how important an issue it is.
This is one major problem with the modern GOP... They don't recognize how much disinformation is being spread by conservatives and how very literally deadly it is to a free Republic.
"To be clear, existing research has found that conservatives have a greater tendency toward misinformation than liberals do...
In other words, it was the combination of conservatism and low conscientiousness that resulted in the greatest likelihood to share misinformation."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/14/we-found-the-one-group-of-americans-who-are-most-likely-to-spread-fake-news-526973%3f_amp=true
1. As long as it meets your definition of disinformation.
2. Given that the current person tapped to lead this office has such a great record of falsely labeling things as "disinformation", I'm not sure what your point is.
3. Excellent job of speaking for some unidentified "we". Are you suggesting that you've been outspoken about the COVID disinformation spread by the federal government? For example, have you been outspoken regarding the false information spread about death rates "from COVIFD" ?
Your naivete (I hope it's naivete) is fascinating. The fact that you think that this office won't quickly become a way to give government imprimatur to partisan talking points is touching.
Given the number of things that y'all labeled "disinformation" that have been proven to simply be "factual information" doesn't give me hope for this new Ministry of Truth.
Craig... "9 Do y'all realize that just because you might be "offended", that it doesn't mean that whatever "offended" you should be censored?"
Indeed, the way that conservatives whine on and on endlessly about how offended they are because they are the poor suffering oppressed when they're just being expected to be responsible fellow citizens... that whining about being offended is insufferable and should just stop.
Craig... "11. Law enforcement limiting, censoring, or punishing free speech seems like a bad idea."
On the other hand, expecting people to not pass on dangerous false claims seems like a very good idea and having rules in place to help minimize the spread of dangerous false claims seems reasonable. Especially when those false claims lead to violent insurrections and plots against the gov't and undermining faith in a free press or our election system.
You all support law enforcement when it comes to killing black men for selling "illegal" single cigarettes, but when it comes to establishing rules to prevent dangerous misinformation, you're fine with it.
One has to wonder why?
Could it be that you all are offended that you are neither the moral nor the majority and you're offended that all those people (ie, the majority of our free republic) are taking away your "rights" to oppress others, to decide health matters for women, to decide where immigrants can and can't live, to decide who can marry whom and what gender someone is! You all don't have the right to oppress others. LOSING the "right" to oppress others should not offend you.
Really, what specific conservatives are "whining about being offended"? Specifically, what conservatives are trying to remove people from public discourse only because they're "offended"?
This is where you'd actually want to provide evidence of your claims when you make them.
"On the other hand, expecting people to not pass on dangerous false claims seems like a very good idea and having rules in place to help minimize the spread of dangerous false claims seems reasonable. Especially when those false claims lead to violent insurrections and plots against the gov't and undermining faith in a free press or our election system."
Really, you really think that it's "responsible" to abridge people's right to free speech? You really think that DHS (a department that the APL hasn't been particularly fond of) is the best option to police people's free speech? You do realize that having certain limited and specific "restrictions" on free speech is not the same as appointing people to stop "disinformation", don't you?
"You all support law enforcement when it comes to killing black men for selling "illegal" single cigarettes, but when it comes to establishing rules to prevent dangerous misinformation, you're fine with it."
Again, if you're going to make these wild claims, you should probably support them.
"One has to wonder why?"
Why your claim is literally disinformation? If you think that false claims should be censored, then you should probably stop making them.
Again, who specifically is "offended"?
Unfounded claims are a real problem for you.
Post a Comment