Isn't this what people want through the world? Control and ban fake news. Defined as what those currently in power think.
Also, only three years? Isn't that very soft thinking how destructive fake news can be?
Also, only three years? Isn't that very soft thinking how destructive fake news can be?
To this day, if you have an opinion that is against mainstream regarding Covid, you risk getting banned. So health and political themes are moderately moderated for deviance. And by moderately I mean lots gets through just because their tools are imperfect not because that's what they want.
What is a good example of non-mainstream COVID speech that has gotten someone banned? (Not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m just wondering what’s a good example you have in mind)
In the worst case, people conflate the two to rationalize tolerance for having no repercussions for promoting damaging lies
And there can be wide gray areas where people’s perspectives, literacy of facts, or motives are too different to make a clear judgement between disagreement and reckless or intentional faslehoods.
But they are not the same
Was the Steele Report disinformation? Depends if ask you Donald Trump or the FBI. Was the Hunter biden laptop disinformation? Depends who you ask. Was "vaccines don't prevent covid" disinformation? Depends on when you ask the CDC.
You could avoid a slippery slope by drawing the line at intentionally and knowingly telling a mistruth--that's essentially where US defamation laws draw the line. But that is almost never where the line is drawn. Under that definition of lying, Anti-vaxers aren't lying--they are just wrong.
And on the slip side, when the government intentionally lies--masks don't work--its not disinformation--its a messaging technique.
I can't honestly believe you don't think there are a lot of people who want that. They've been very up front about it.
Michelle Carter convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide over text messages and was convicted for it. I don’t know if I disagree that trying to use speech to convince a sick person into suicide shouldn’t be legal.
But at the same time I’m generally a free speech proponent and find jailing people for speech abhorrent. But I struggle to believe all speech should be legal if it knowingly ruins lives or causes death.
There's really no justification for extreme measures to deal with this problem, especially when the potential side-effects largely outweigh any potential gains.
People try to say that things are different now with tech, that conspiracies are spreading faster. But what is also spreading faster and is 10x more popular than conspiracy theories is alarmist news and pearl clutching that society won't be able to deal with it without widespread censorship.
People need to step away from Twitter and take a deep breath. We can handle it.
Many do want something like this--as long as someone with their viewpoint is the one deciding what is true or false.
>asking leading questions that create the illusion that you're making a point?
It's called a rhetorical question.
A rhetorical question usually has an answer too obvious for any need to answer
A leading question creates a discussion on some topic, using the question instead of some new information or rational argument, to move the baseline assumptions of the discussion
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
"Policed around" doesn't sound like a pleasant feeling but I can at least assure you it's nothing personal. We moderate HN when people break the site guidelines.