Social Biden Ushers in the Ministry of Truth era

[Denter]

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?

Something like this is a good idea, but unfortunately it will be toothless, and probably partisan as well, and will likely just be ignored.

 

[S Class]

We going CCP style now.

 

[Seano]

Do you believe the election was stolen? you can just answer that right now and be done with it

You made the accusation, quote him on it.

 

[GoldenWolf87]

We going CCP style now.

You mean Russian style with Russia Affiliated News.

Wait we already have that.. CNN,MSNBC, FOX....

 

[Fugazy]

Trump de facto did this with his "fake news" schtick at anyone who disagreed with him. Not trying to do whataboutism, but hopefully this concern will be directed at whoever is in charge.

In regards to the OP, there's no doubt that this is an incredibly bad look for the Biden administration. Misinformation being spread like wildfire is a major societal problem, however there's absolutely zero trust in the Biden admin administer any task regulating that. Even IF they are doing this in good faith, it's never going to succeed. They are too biased and will only further distance voters.


That meme or whatever is what misinformation is. Outside of a few, the points are misleading or inaccurate. It's unfortunate how little you guys can filter this stuff and apply your scepticism to facebook infographs, considering how sceptical you are of more legiimtate sources.

Trump calling CNN fake news and calling reporters liars is nowhere near the same as the US Government creating a ministry to battle “disinformation”.

Not even close.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

You made the accusation, quote him on it.

Or he can just answer the question

 

[plataoplombo]

Trump calling CNN fake news and calling reporters liars is nowhere near the same as the US Government creating a ministry to battle “disinformation”.

Not even close.

From Wikipedia:

"Dictatorships are often characterised by some of the following: suspension of elections and civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents; not abiding by the rule of law procedures, and cult of personality."

Aside from suspension of elections, Brandon has checked all the other boxes.

 

[Rob Battisti]

@Jack V Savage is this an affront to free speech?

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage is this an affront to free speech?

What, specifically, are we talking about? If it's people calling out false claims, no, obviously that would not be an affront to free speech. Free speech doesn't mean that you have to be silent when people are making false claims. If there's some effort to arrest people or sanction them for their opinions, it would be.

 

[Rob Battisti]

What, specifically, are we talking about? If it's people calling out false claims, no, obviously that would not be an affront to free speech. Free speech doesn't mean that you have to be silent when people are making false claims. If there's some effort to arrest people or sanction them for their opinions, it would be.

The government instituting a cabinet specifically to make assessments as to what is misinformation and what isn’t. Is that specific action a danger of authoritarian oversight of speech and information?

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

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?

The problem here is that the group that people are pointing the fingers at in spreading fake news and misinformation is now the same group that will officially decide what is fake news and misinformation (hint: it's not gonna be their stories)

 

[Papi Chulo]

Leftists silencing the opinions they don't like. Is anyone surprised?

 

[Hollywood Jack]

In violent times
You shouldn't have to sell your soul
In black and white
They really, really ought to know

Those one track minds
They took you for a working boy
Kiss them goodbye
You shouldn't have to jump for joy

 

[ineverpost]

they will have to label you a terrorist via DHS before being able to interfere with twitter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The government instituting a cabinet specifically to make assessments as to what is misinformation and what isn’t. Is that specific action a danger of authoritarian oversight of speech and information?

The action of assessing information? That's not at all authoritarian, unless we just think that the very act of wanting to know the truth and of saying that truth is better than falsity is authoritarian, which we shouldn't (though I get the sense that some people do). If there's an attempt by the gov't to suppress opinions or genuine errors, that would be a problem to those of us who believe in freedom of speech.

I think it's useful to go back to the point I made in the other thread, about Orwell. The liberal idea is that in order to have a society and gov't guided by science (not just natural science), people have to be able to tell the truth (including moral truths) to the best of their ability, and entrenched hierarchies will always be a threat to that (because the process of developing our understanding and advancing is never-ending--as RZ sings, "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin."). As a result of that, we need to elevate support for freedom of speech above support for any existing power or we face the danger of being stuck. We end up incidentally having to protect lies because we don't know what people are thinking (though materially injurious lies--fraud--are sanctioned). But there's no basis in such thought for the idea that calling out lies is bad. They should be called out and disrespected, and people should shun them.

You didn't respond last time, but I think it's clear that there is no similar rightist basis for freedom of speech as a principle (there often is a move by rightists to destigmatize far-right views for practical reasons).

 

[oldshadow]

So when Republicans take the white house and put their own people in charge of this the left will cry and throw a temper tantrum.

What cones around goes around.

It should be great fodder for mid terms and the next election for the white house.

 

[Rob Battisti]

The action of assessing information? That's not at all authoritarian, unless we just think that the very act of wanting to know the truth and of saying that truth is better than falsity is authoritarian, which we shouldn't (though I get the sense that some people do). If there's an attempt by the gov't to suppress opinions or genuine errors, that would be a problem to those of us who believe in freedom of speech.

I think it's useful to go back to the point I made in the other thread, about Orwell. The liberal idea is that in order to have a society and gov't guided by science (not just natural science), people have to be able to tell the truth (including moral truths) to the best of their ability, and entrenched hierarchies will always be a threat to that (because the process of developing our understanding and advancing is never-ending--as RZ sings, "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin."). As a result of that, we need to elevate support for freedom of speech above support for any existing power or we face the danger of being stuck. We end up incidentally having to protect lies because we don't know what people are thinking (though materially injurious lies--fraud--are sanctioned). But there's no basis in such thought for the idea that calling out lies is bad. They should be called out and disrespected, and people should shun them.

You didn't respond last time, but I think it's clear that there is no similar rightist basis for freedom of speech as a principle (there often is a move by rightists to destigmatize far-right views for practical reasons).

So your position is that government is at all times altruistic and would at no point make decisions on what is good or bad, worthy or unworthy of discussion, information based on what is politically convenient? In your opinion, there is no risk of an abuse of the ability to give or take away credence of information to suit their agenda?

If so, you’d of been totally okay with Trump, at the zenith of his “fake news” rampages, implementing the same authority?

Secondarily, you see no hypocrisy in supporting this, but denouncing Florida for disagreements on the support of certain information by certain companies? Certainly, this cabinet will lead to the exact same outcome in that they will be installed to say “this company has wrongthink” and thereby must be silenced or fined or shunned. You have even called for this to happen in the post I’ve quoted.

For a supposed defender of everything free speech, the idea of any federal institution deciding what is true and what isn’t not bothering you in the least is quite telling.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So your position is that government is at all times altruistic and would at no point make decisions on what is good or bad, worthy or unworthy of discussion, information based on what is politically convenient? In your opinion, there is no risk of an abuse of the ability to give or take away credence of information to suit their agenda?

I used to call that "doing a Cubo," after another poster who loved the tactic. "So you're saying (something you're not saying)." No, Rob, my position is not now and has never been that "gov't is at all times altruistic ..." Surely you don't think for a minute that that's what I was saying, do you? Why do that, then?

If so, you’d of been totally okay with Trump, at the zenith of his “fake news” rampages, implementing the same authority?

The authority to say that something is untrue? Pretty sure he implemented that all the damned time, in crazy ways. If only he had an actual system!

Secondarily, you see no hypocrisy in supporting this, but denouncing Florida for disagreements on the support of certain information by certain companies? Certainly, this cabinet will lead to the exact same outcome in that they will be installed to say “this company has wrongthink” and thereby must be silenced or fined or shunned. You have even called for this to happen in the post I’ve quoted.

I disagree with your "certainly." If I'm wrong, we'll end up agreeing. But at this point, no, there's no hypocrisy in believing that gov'ts should not sanction companies for disagreements and also believing that telling people that they think something is untrue.

For a supposed defender of everything free speech, the idea of any federal institution deciding what is true and what isn’t not bothering you in the least is quite telling.

"Deciding" is a loaded term there. If the gov't issues a statement saying that some claim is false, that's not a problem or in any way an attack on freedom of speech. In fact, I can't see how the position that people shouldn't be able to counter lies with facts is defensible for a freedom-of-speech defender.

 

[lilelvis]

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?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Sounds like a good idea. Too much ct nonsense and foreign bots spreading bs out there.