Social Biden Ushers in the Ministry of Truth era

[Confucamus]

And it isn't just twitter. Take the example of Project Veritas I just used, being raided by the FBI in the middle of the night, despite doing nothing illegal. That is intimidation and they used it to monitor what they might have on their devices and/or destroy them

Left wing posters on here in any thread that has PV info, is basically like "ha, PV, it must be fake"... that is their opinion, but I also ask, what has PV actually been provably wrong about? Is it cause they might take something a bit out of context and/or edit it? The mainstream media does that ALL THE TIME. Give me a fucking break.

But that just highlights that they don't want people to simply be able to decide for themselves. They want to shut down opposition voices. So the facebook whistle blower, super leftist lady calling for more censorship is a hero, but the ones from pfizer should be treated like terroristts? The pfizer one wasn't even a poilitical person, she was simply concerned with what she was seeing. And that is what they are afraid of.

Completely. They've shown their whole hand with the meltdown over Twitter becoming more inclusive and their support of a Ministry of Truth. They show no concern for the misinformation coming from their side of the aisle. It's uncomfortable for them when their ideals are challenged. If they were passionate and educated about a subject, they should be eager to debate and discuss opposing ideals peacefully. But as we've seen, it's not the actual issues they care about. It's just about winning. For all they pretend to care about, they show an extreme inability to have a fact based discussion on almost any issue.

 

[heloder]

They show no concern for the misinformation coming from their side of the aisle. It's uncomfortable for them when their ideals are challenged. If they were passionate and educated about a subject, they should be eager to debate and discuss opposing ideals peacefully. But as we've seen, it's not the actual issues they care about. It's just about winning. For all they pretend to care about, they show an extreme inability to have a fact based discussion on almost any issue.

If you posted this in Times Square every single person who walked by would think it referred to the opposing side. And they'd all be correct.

 

[Goonerview]

The ministry of truth for the empire of lies. How ironic!

 

[Jack V Savage]

One man having an opinion (that the majority of American’s didn’t even take seriously, FWIW.) is not the same as a department authoritatively declaring what is truth and not.

I know, this is a shocking revelation.

So the problem isn't the Executive Branch publicly calling out falsehoods; it's the fact that it's doing it in a way that is credible and thus might be more likely to be believed.

 

[Yehudim]

So the problem isn't the Executive Branch publicly calling out falsehoods; it's the fact that it's doing it in a way that is credible and thus might be more likely to be believed.

An appearance of credibility and authoritativeness, yes, that is the issue.

 

[Jack V Savage]

An appearance of credibility and authoritativeness, yes, that is the issue.

Why would that be a problem?

 

[sickc0d3r]

I see this disinformation governance board being weaponized. It's part of DHS which deals with terrorism. Anyone that speaks out against the government actions could be labeled and treated like a terrorist.

I don’t think a board is needed for (or capable of) labeling people as actual terrorists. And the DHS has been combating Russian disinformation for years.
This board (bad idea, politically, and horribly named, imo) is apparently focused on rebutting what it describes as “misinformation geared toward migrants, which the wire service says has helped fuel surges of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. Specifically, the news agency says human smugglers have been spreading misinformation about border policies to drum up business.” So it’s ostensibly created to address the immediate problem of human trafficking, and that’s about disinformation used in other countries like Haiti.
Of course it’s likely it will expand in scope in the future, and who knows what that will look like. But it’s not so easy for the government to outright punish people for having opinions they don’t like. Like Desantis is trying to do to Disney, for example. You need legislative backing, which is more difficult to get at the federal level. And then there’s the scotus if it ever comes to a rights violation.
Personally, I’m more concerned the “rebuttals” will just end up being propaganda based on the agenda of whoever is running the show in a given cycle.

 

[Jack V Savage]

there used to be some pretty intelligent people who were in love with him and lent him credence but that seems to have passed. hes full of shit in the most profound ways. people like him are why the tao te ching teaches NOT to value talent or gifts or even intelligence over something more intangible and deeper. you can have all those things and still be WAY off.

Spewing hatred at people who disagree with you doesn't actually make your arguments more correct, though I guess it can make you more comfortable with being wrong.

 

[$uperman]

"Truth is treason in an empire of lies" - George Orwell

 

[Yehudim]

Why would that be a problem?

Because it would become a political tool for a flawed system, as the COVID pandemic and some of the best fact checkers have revealed to us.

The facts are not always immediately revealed and todays conspiracy is tomorrows fact.

The APPEARANCE of credibility and authoritativeness would make it not a tool to inform decision making, but a tool to shut down discussion. OK when discussing clear, observable facts. Not OK for breaking news, novel events, poorly documented events, ongoing investigations, or when a great deal of speculation is required, such as guessing the intent of a person.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Because it would become a political tool for a flawed system, as the COVID pandemic and some of the best fact checkers have revealed to us.

That's pretty abstract. Everything is a political tool. It seems to me that your fear is exactly the same as the fear that leads to efforts to fight misinformation. People believe that other people have inaccurate beliefs and that that causes problems (looks like the specific problem they're trying to deal with here is a flood at the border).

The facts are not always immediately revealed and todays conspiracy is tomorrows fact.

Sure. I agree that people should only declare false things to be false. Declaring true things to be false is bad, IMO. I don't agree in principle that declaring things to be true or false is inherently bad.

The APPEARANCE of credibility and authoritativeness would make it not a tool to inform decision making, but a tool to shut down discussion. OK when discussing clear, observable facts. Not OK for breaking news, novel events, poorly documented events, ongoing investigations, or when a great deal of speculation is required, such as guessing the intent of a person.

I don't think that someone disagreeing with you in a convincing way is "shutting down discussion" in a problematic way. Actually shutting down discussion is bad. Making good points that cause people to say, "oh, shit, I guess you're right," is good.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Completely. They've shown their whole hand with the meltdown over Twitter becoming more inclusive and their support of a Ministry of Truth. They show no concern for the misinformation coming from their side of the aisle. It's uncomfortable for them when their ideals are challenged. If they were passionate and educated about a subject, they should be eager to debate and discuss opposing ideals peacefully. But as we've seen, it's not the actual issues they care about. It's just about winning. For all they pretend to care about, they show an extreme inability to have a fact based discussion on almost any issue.

And you know where this is going? Just look at a Biden Judicial Nominee be questioned in congress. She says it is OK to says false information, if it is a rhetorical point as an advocate. Even it completely false.

They will take this to be, it is disinformation to post stuff like actual crime statisrtics. Have activists judges like this person, etc is such a dangerous thing. or this woman for this DHS position. The people will collude together, just like the establishment already does like the Russian Hoax.

They will be using language like "in the name of social equity, we find it disinformation to prost thesse statistics, because you do not add the proper context of what social injustice these people experience, so we will not allow this stuff on government regulated social media"

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don’t think a board is needed for (or capable of) labeling people as actual terrorists. And the DHS has been combating Russian disinformation for years.
This board (bad idea, politically, and horribly named, imo) is apparently focused on rebutting what it describes as “misinformation geared toward migrants, which the wire service says has helped fuel surges of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. Specifically, the news agency says human smugglers have been spreading misinformation about border policies to drum up business.” So it’s ostensibly created to address the immediate problem of human trafficking, and that’s about disinformation used in other countries like Haiti.
Of course it’s likely it will expand in scope in the future, and who knows what that will look like. But it’s not so easy for the government to outright punish people for having opinions they don’t like. Like Desantis is trying to do to Disney, for example. You need legislative backing, which is more difficult to get at the federal level. And then there’s the scotus if it ever comes to a rights violation.
Personally, I’m more concerned the “rebuttals” will just end up being propaganda based on the agenda of whoever is running the show in a given cycle.

I think there can be arguments against the idea on the grounds that it's unlikely to be effective (though I think that a lot of people are misunderstanding what's actually being discussed), that misinformation is not generally as harmful as people think (@Khabib Khanate made this point, and it's good, IMO), and even that it could be misused. It's specifically the idea that it's some kind of attack on freedom of speech that I think is hysterical.

Generally, rightists misunderstand freedom of speech on two grounds: 1. People who disagree with you speaking is not a violation of your freedom of speech. It goes both ways. 2. The purpose of freedom of speech is to enable truth to prevail. Fundamentally, if one doesn't believe in objective reality or that anyone is engaged in trying to find it, the basis is gone. Also, people are invoking Orwell while having zero understanding of his thought. As I pointed out, he believed that freedom of speech was only possible in a leftist regime, and he explicitly said that his main purpose for writing was to advance socialism, fight totalitarianism, and (this one is important) counter lies.

 

[Ron Mexico]

You would think people would applaud this after all the energy they spend complaining about fake news and biased news sources. I can understand people's concern about this but I'm even more curious what they think should be done about fake news and biased reporting instead?

Are you talking about the lab leak theory or Bigfoot

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[terrapin]

Spewing hatred at people who disagree with you doesn't actually make your arguments more correct, though I guess it can make you more comfortable with being wrong.

I don't hate you in the least. I feel sorry for you sometimes but for the most part I have love fo you jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you talking about the lab leak theory or Bigfoot

Separate from this thread, the lab-leak theory evolution is interesting for what it shows about the broader discourse. It's not like the theory was found to be true or really strongly supported. It's just that expert consensus moved from "nah," to "hmm, probably not but maybe." Compare that to, say, Ivermectin proponents, who seemed to have gotten more dug in as the evidence refuting the claim that it is an effective treatment for COVID has gotten stronger. People making up their minds based on evidence will see their positions evolve, while CTers never do.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't hate you in the least. I feel sorry for you sometimes but for the most part I have love fo you jack.

I'm not offended. I take it as a big compliment that you go that route, as I think it reveals that you know that the actual arguments I make are good. I think in general, being a good, honest person here gets you a lot of the right kind of enemies.

 

[Sano]

As much as I disagree with this move and find the Biden administration both incompetent, impotent and corporate status quo bootlickers, most of you guys in this thread are radicalized to the point of being brainwashed. The lines are drawn up so feverously you've lost the ability to examine anything objectively. When trolls like @Papi Chulo and posters like @cottagecheesefan are leading the charge you have to take a step back and wonder what's going on within your own party.

I really hope someone serious (political candidate) kicks the door in soon in the US and runs a platform on real issues while putting aside the culture war politics. It's rotting brains on both sides.

 

[SKYNET]

Is this a bad time to remind everyone about Mass Formation Psychosis?