Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour..." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime.", ">\n\nI remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime.", ">\n\nI remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History", ">\n\nWell I think its important to distinguish what misinformation and disinformation is. Misinformation is someone accidentally spreading false information because they're ignorant and disinformation is someone spreading false information deliberately." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime.", ">\n\nI remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History", ">\n\nWell I think its important to distinguish what misinformation and disinformation is. Misinformation is someone accidentally spreading false information because they're ignorant and disinformation is someone spreading false information deliberately.", ">\n\nThis is odd question because countering misinformation shouldn't violate the first amendment. \nBecause it's not an issue for the government to solve. \nIt's the just the mot-de-jure used to gin up a moral panic. In reality it is simply just a not good thing but also not a problem.\nFrankly, vigorous attempts to combat do more to bolster it than anything else." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime.", ">\n\nI remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History", ">\n\nWell I think its important to distinguish what misinformation and disinformation is. Misinformation is someone accidentally spreading false information because they're ignorant and disinformation is someone spreading false information deliberately.", ">\n\nThis is odd question because countering misinformation shouldn't violate the first amendment. \nBecause it's not an issue for the government to solve. \nIt's the just the mot-de-jure used to gin up a moral panic. In reality it is simply just a not good thing but also not a problem.\nFrankly, vigorous attempts to combat do more to bolster it than anything else.", ">\n\nThere is no simple answer. The First Amendment as interpreted precludes GOVERNMENT control of the press and precludes prior restraint by the GOVERNMENT of stories the government thinks are harmful. I think most would agree that the basic idea of a free press is good -- no one wants the government deciding what information can and cannot be distributed. Such power is always abused.\nAccordingly, we are forced to rely on the effectiveness of private parties owning the websites. What's going on with Twitter right now demonstrates the problems with relying on private parties with a profit motive to protect us. \nThe problem is that we are hoping that private profit seekers will protect us from ourselves (our human tendencies) even though it will cost them money. There will ALWAYS be greedy people who just don't care what damage they cause if they are making more money. One could point to the data suggesting that there are more sociopaths in the super rich than in the general population.\nMy understanding is that the main problem is the algorithms that feed social media users more and more extreme content in order to boost ad sale revenues and the value of user data that can also be sold or used to generate revenue. These algorithms result in siloing of people into information silos and such people are never exposed to contrary information or analyses. This results in radicalization. \nSo, one step would be to try to regulate the algorithms that private providers can use -- essentially require social media to use algorithms that link to opposing views. Kind of a new fairness doctrine for the internet as it used to exist for broadcast media. Enforcement would be difficult, and a fairness doctrine has its own issues (not least that it encourages false equivalencies -- some propositions cannot \"fairly\" be defended), but it would be a step in the right direction." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime.", ">\n\nI remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History", ">\n\nWell I think its important to distinguish what misinformation and disinformation is. Misinformation is someone accidentally spreading false information because they're ignorant and disinformation is someone spreading false information deliberately.", ">\n\nThis is odd question because countering misinformation shouldn't violate the first amendment. \nBecause it's not an issue for the government to solve. \nIt's the just the mot-de-jure used to gin up a moral panic. In reality it is simply just a not good thing but also not a problem.\nFrankly, vigorous attempts to combat do more to bolster it than anything else.", ">\n\nThere is no simple answer. The First Amendment as interpreted precludes GOVERNMENT control of the press and precludes prior restraint by the GOVERNMENT of stories the government thinks are harmful. I think most would agree that the basic idea of a free press is good -- no one wants the government deciding what information can and cannot be distributed. Such power is always abused.\nAccordingly, we are forced to rely on the effectiveness of private parties owning the websites. What's going on with Twitter right now demonstrates the problems with relying on private parties with a profit motive to protect us. \nThe problem is that we are hoping that private profit seekers will protect us from ourselves (our human tendencies) even though it will cost them money. There will ALWAYS be greedy people who just don't care what damage they cause if they are making more money. One could point to the data suggesting that there are more sociopaths in the super rich than in the general population.\nMy understanding is that the main problem is the algorithms that feed social media users more and more extreme content in order to boost ad sale revenues and the value of user data that can also be sold or used to generate revenue. These algorithms result in siloing of people into information silos and such people are never exposed to contrary information or analyses. This results in radicalization. \nSo, one step would be to try to regulate the algorithms that private providers can use -- essentially require social media to use algorithms that link to opposing views. Kind of a new fairness doctrine for the internet as it used to exist for broadcast media. Enforcement would be difficult, and a fairness doctrine has its own issues (not least that it encourages false equivalencies -- some propositions cannot \"fairly\" be defended), but it would be a step in the right direction.", ">\n\nHere's the problem: Responsibility and accountability.\nA person on YouTube, Facebook or Reddit is held accountable. The other commenters will ask for burdens of proof and/or take them to task on misinformation, bias, etc.\nThe MEDIA however, is not faced with this. They either ignore criticism, or worse, use their voice and power to shout/cancel the individual taking them to task.\nThis applies also to our leaders we elect as well. They spout off whatever they want in committee, \"the floor\", or anywhere else, and yet when was the last time any one of them ever did jail time for obvious, blatant violations like perjury or conflicting interest?\nTo bring it back to the OP, the counter to misinformation is information. And honestly we're all responsible for that. We're all responsible for hearing something, verifying it's correct, then critically thinking about it, and then forming an opinion.\nThat's the beauty and duty of America and Americans. We're in charge of ourselves, so if we fail, we honestly have no one to blame but ourselves." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime.", ">\n\nI remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History", ">\n\nWell I think its important to distinguish what misinformation and disinformation is. Misinformation is someone accidentally spreading false information because they're ignorant and disinformation is someone spreading false information deliberately.", ">\n\nThis is odd question because countering misinformation shouldn't violate the first amendment. \nBecause it's not an issue for the government to solve. \nIt's the just the mot-de-jure used to gin up a moral panic. In reality it is simply just a not good thing but also not a problem.\nFrankly, vigorous attempts to combat do more to bolster it than anything else.", ">\n\nThere is no simple answer. The First Amendment as interpreted precludes GOVERNMENT control of the press and precludes prior restraint by the GOVERNMENT of stories the government thinks are harmful. I think most would agree that the basic idea of a free press is good -- no one wants the government deciding what information can and cannot be distributed. Such power is always abused.\nAccordingly, we are forced to rely on the effectiveness of private parties owning the websites. What's going on with Twitter right now demonstrates the problems with relying on private parties with a profit motive to protect us. \nThe problem is that we are hoping that private profit seekers will protect us from ourselves (our human tendencies) even though it will cost them money. There will ALWAYS be greedy people who just don't care what damage they cause if they are making more money. One could point to the data suggesting that there are more sociopaths in the super rich than in the general population.\nMy understanding is that the main problem is the algorithms that feed social media users more and more extreme content in order to boost ad sale revenues and the value of user data that can also be sold or used to generate revenue. These algorithms result in siloing of people into information silos and such people are never exposed to contrary information or analyses. This results in radicalization. \nSo, one step would be to try to regulate the algorithms that private providers can use -- essentially require social media to use algorithms that link to opposing views. Kind of a new fairness doctrine for the internet as it used to exist for broadcast media. Enforcement would be difficult, and a fairness doctrine has its own issues (not least that it encourages false equivalencies -- some propositions cannot \"fairly\" be defended), but it would be a step in the right direction.", ">\n\nHere's the problem: Responsibility and accountability.\nA person on YouTube, Facebook or Reddit is held accountable. The other commenters will ask for burdens of proof and/or take them to task on misinformation, bias, etc.\nThe MEDIA however, is not faced with this. They either ignore criticism, or worse, use their voice and power to shout/cancel the individual taking them to task.\nThis applies also to our leaders we elect as well. They spout off whatever they want in committee, \"the floor\", or anywhere else, and yet when was the last time any one of them ever did jail time for obvious, blatant violations like perjury or conflicting interest?\nTo bring it back to the OP, the counter to misinformation is information. And honestly we're all responsible for that. We're all responsible for hearing something, verifying it's correct, then critically thinking about it, and then forming an opinion.\nThat's the beauty and duty of America and Americans. We're in charge of ourselves, so if we fail, we honestly have no one to blame but ourselves.", ">\n\nSince nobody can say anything that will actually be heard by anyone without the consent of an internetmedia mogul, said mogul's just need to ban lies. Take down the lies. After repeated offenses, close the account of the liars. Pretty simple really. Private companies can do that without hurting the 1st amendment. Unless SCOTUS decides it's de facto infringement because there is noplace left for liars to go. But why would anyone - even this crazy Supreme Court - want to protect liars?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower.", ">\n\nFreedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room. Wtf even is this😂", ">\n\nNo. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry.", ">\n\nThere are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.\nLook up \"News guard\" as an example of \"fact checking\" run amok into propaganda.", ">\n\nThe only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship", ">\n\nAppealing to reason doesn't work if you can't agree on a shared reality.", ">\n\nWe need to teach simple logic beginning in 4th grade so by the time kids get to high school they can at least identify the fallacies and know how a Truth Table works. What a society does to its children, those children will do to the society.\" Cisero c.50BC", ">\n\nAs an early Millennial we where always thought to question everything, now kids are taught to fall in line or be called a conspiracy theorist if you question any mainstream narrative. Completely Orwellian", ">\n\nQuestioning anything, let alone everything, without knowing how a legitimate \"q and a\" works is worthless egoism. How do you know if you even got an answer, or just more bamboozelment, if you do not understand syntactic logic and understand logical fallacies and how to identify a paradox? Questioning is good. Refusing to accept reality is something entirely different.", ">\n\nIn your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is \"countering misinformation\" and how?", ">\n\nWe live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average \"news\" story. \nHow many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. \nLook at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and \"news\" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft \"stories\" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money.", ">\n\nEducation in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days.", ">\n\nBan engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.", ">\n\nNew digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet.", ">\n\nI think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail. We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions. If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong?", ">\n\nNo. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes \"misinformation\" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between. No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. \nSecond, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others.", ">\n\nI am remembering just these past few months the Government of Canada calling any accusation that the recent gun bill includes \"hunting rifles\" as being misinformation!. Well now that the other parties are dropping their support of the bill, suddenly they are reviewing it to make sure they will not negatively affect hunters. The problem is who is deciding what is misinformation. The government? Bezos?", ">\n\nThe simple fact is that entire books can be written about incidents of the Trusted Authorities^^TM lying to the public. It happens over and over and over. The problem is that the people who are pushing to force everyone to accept them as the arbiters of truth rarely engage in good faith. When you give them a single example like you have here they just cry \"one-off!\" and ignore it. Give them a short list and they just cry \"muh cherry-picking!\" and ignore it. Give them a long one and they bleat about Gish Gallops and ignore the actual argument. It's exhausting and I'm quite sure it's intentional.", ">\n\nThe problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… \nThe problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement", ">\n\nThis isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe.", ">\n\nThe counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct.", ">\n\nWhat I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.\nPeople who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.\nHere’s some basic truths:\n- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth\n- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort\nWhich means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).\nHuman are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.\n… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.\nIf people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.\nMisinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. \nThat’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.\nThere is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.\nRemember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.\n…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.\nImagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…\nOr how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?\nOr how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)\nPeople cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close.", ">\n\nExcept the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.\nA belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information.", ">\n\nMy point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. \nThat’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.\nIn short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.\nBecause without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context.", ">\n\n\nFree Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.\n\nThat isn't even close to true. Truth wins out far more often than lies. You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration.", ">\n\nThe fact you believe this, is endearing.", ">\n\nI mean it's just painfully obvious. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything? You stated lies win EVERY time. Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on.", ">\n\nI would take a bet, every single person who uses the internet believes in something that is objectively untrue. In a heartbeat.", ">\n\nReally shifting the goalposts here.\n\"Every person probably believes at least one objectively untrue thing\" does not contradict the idea that on average truth wins out more often than lies.", ">\n\nIt’s a game of numbers. I find the idea that “Truth Wins” to be one that only works if you add a bunch a caveats to it. Because even the most basic things people know are usually rooted in hearsay or conjecture.\nYou think political polarization increasing across multiple countries is an accident? No, that’s the success of propaganda and it’s only getting worse.\nEvery single shred of data bares this out. Polarization, everywhere.", ">\n\nYou're jumping from slight bits of data to massively unsupported conclusions.\n\"Lots of people believe untrue things\" and \"political polarization is generally increasing\" and \"those last two facts are worth being concerned about\" are all pretty general statements, although they're basically true. It hardly supports jumping to the conclusion that the concept of free speech is a bad idea.", ">\n\nFCC fairness doctrine\nSomething was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. \nThis is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through.", ">\n\n\nThe fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.\n\nOh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips.", ">\n\nNever said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual.", ">\n\nI don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't \"censoring\" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to \"suppress\" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.\nAdditionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.\nThirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. \nOn the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat.", ">\n\nIMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.\nTo tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation.", ">\n\nI think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions. There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable. There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that.", ">\n\nThis is a roundabout paradox of tolerance. The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation. It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it. Same, but different.\nBut frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do. It can be done, and can be done directly.", ">\n\nWhat misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway?", ">\n\nBecause people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts.", ">\n\nOMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!!", ">\n\nYes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong.", ">\n\nLet's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. \nBrushing your teeth.\nHow often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?\nThere's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.\nMost people would claim \"twice a day\" as the \"correct\" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?\nYou think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?\nWho do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is.", ">\n\nSide note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic", ">\n\nYep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! \nIf you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!\nThat's how it works, right?", ">\n\nI'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me?", ">\n\nNope, sorry. Not sure how that happened!", ">\n\nThe problem is people only want to stop misinformation that doesn't push their desired narrative.\nLiberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.\nNo party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition", ">\n\nI'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society.", ">\n\nAny attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda.", ">\n\n\"people have a right to be wrong\" they say. \"Freedom of Speech\" and so on.\nSure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.\nBe wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.\nBe wrong; be quiet.", ">\n\nWhat are you talking about?", ">\n\nMisinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.\nSo the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves.", ">\n\nWhat would you like to do about \"misinformation\" and who would be in charge of determining what is \"misinformation\" and what is \"good and approved information?\" Again, what are you talking about?", ">\n\nIt's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.\nYour position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.\nGravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. \nAnd if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. \nNo one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient.", ">\n\nThis dude you're replying to is all-in. It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.\n\"How do we know what's misinformation?\" If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion.", ">\n\nAnyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. \nVirtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.\nAnyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.\nYou counter misinformation with the facts.\nAnything else is censorship and evil.", ">\n\nWhile i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion.", ">\n\nThe issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality.", ">\n\n\nIs there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation? \n\nYes. Be honest.\nBut the press no longer has that gear.", ">\n\nTeach critical thinking. Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.\nEnforce/require disipline AND thought\nTo this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:\n\n\nhave schools compete for students; School choice\n\n\nTest and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s\n\n\nclasses should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects\n\n\nteach vigorous debate and critical thinking\n\n\nrequire grading curves to end grade inflation\n\n\nrequire merit and performance\n\n\nrequire students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills\n\n\nlimit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.\n\n\nFocus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)\n\n\nA population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed. Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid.", ">\n\nIt isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.\nThen we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?\nThe Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.\nIn my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter.", ">\n\nAt this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.\nThis country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that \"solves\" the problem.\nMy only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist.", ">\n\nTrying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest. Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question.", ">\n\nNot in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things.", ">\n\nThis is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect.", ">\n\nThis is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is.", ">\n\nOur statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly. Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly. This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, \" Well, you're both killers.\". It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality.", ">\n\nWow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too.", ">\n\nThe link is right there dude.", ">\n\nYa, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does. My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.", ">\n\nNo. Nothing can be done about it.\nIn some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.\nRemember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you.", ">\n\nThe best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced. \nIt is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist. \nAs far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence. Ianal. \nAs far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying.", ">\n\nHold the people accountable who spread misinformation. Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages. Alex Jones going down is a great first step.", ">\n\nIronic that you would use this post to spread the misinformation that the US has free speech and Europe not. My country (Sweden) had free speech in their constitution before the US even existed.\nWould you like the government to punish you for spreading this misinformation? Or would you like to be better educated instead?", ">\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? You’re also just wrong.\nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.", ">\n\n\nI don’t really see the need to be so pedantic and dismissive? \n\nOk, I'll try to be less pedantic u/Grammarnazi_bot.\n\nYou’re also just wrong. \nIn 2017, a 70 year old woman was prosecuted for complaining about “migrants defecating on the streets” on Facebook.\n\nWas she convicted? There is a difference between being taken to court, and being convicted.\n\nStupid opinion or not, that’s not the same level of free speech as we have in the US. I’m not saying that you don’t get to say most things, but in the US someone being prosecuted for comments online is unheard of.\n\nHave you missed the Alex Jones trial? There are lots of people in the US who have been taken to court for online comments.", ">\n\nGo and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most. They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News. Well, I got \"news\" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. \nIm reading a lot about fact checking. OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers? Uh oh. See why this is difficult? Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy. So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of \"educated\" people shlepped it all up. \nEducation and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias. So, their \"facts\" will be laden with their side of the story. Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view. That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded. We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady \"facts\". Right?", ">\n\nI don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked.", ">\n\nSeveral countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict \"the news\", including online \"news\" and often including what the US calls \"entertainment news\". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)\nCanada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: \n\n91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,\n(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or\n(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.\n\nIn between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.\nI see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.\nI could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in.", ">\n\nThere is no political will to tackle this issue. Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism. They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable. All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power. I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.\nThat said, there are things that should happen that won’t. \nWe should require social media companies to know their users. Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country. Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.\nBan social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising. Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.\nBreak up media companies that own media outliers across markets. It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.\nRequire media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences. Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system.", ">\n\nCould someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? \nDo you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason?", ">\n\nI used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research\nYou cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com", ">\n\nIn the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people \"feel\" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? \nHe still goes on the air and generates outrage. \nSo a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)\nBut opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation. Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. \nAnyway, education. \nMy favorite one is to ask people who \"they\" are. Yes, but who are \"they\" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the \"radical left\" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC.", ">\n\nThe answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end.", ">\n\nWhen I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.\nWhen I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value.", ">\n\nOddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly", ">\n\nThe solution is to question everything. People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own.", ">\n\nKeep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. \nTruth stands on its own.\nI suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, \"owned\" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in.", ">\n\nIf we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.\nEdit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally.", ">\n\nIt seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists.", ">\n\nYeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise.", ">\n\nThroughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour...", ">\n\nFree speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media. It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime.", ">\n\nI remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History", ">\n\nWell I think its important to distinguish what misinformation and disinformation is. Misinformation is someone accidentally spreading false information because they're ignorant and disinformation is someone spreading false information deliberately.", ">\n\nThis is odd question because countering misinformation shouldn't violate the first amendment. \nBecause it's not an issue for the government to solve. \nIt's the just the mot-de-jure used to gin up a moral panic. In reality it is simply just a not good thing but also not a problem.\nFrankly, vigorous attempts to combat do more to bolster it than anything else.", ">\n\nThere is no simple answer. The First Amendment as interpreted precludes GOVERNMENT control of the press and precludes prior restraint by the GOVERNMENT of stories the government thinks are harmful. I think most would agree that the basic idea of a free press is good -- no one wants the government deciding what information can and cannot be distributed. Such power is always abused.\nAccordingly, we are forced to rely on the effectiveness of private parties owning the websites. What's going on with Twitter right now demonstrates the problems with relying on private parties with a profit motive to protect us. \nThe problem is that we are hoping that private profit seekers will protect us from ourselves (our human tendencies) even though it will cost them money. There will ALWAYS be greedy people who just don't care what damage they cause if they are making more money. One could point to the data suggesting that there are more sociopaths in the super rich than in the general population.\nMy understanding is that the main problem is the algorithms that feed social media users more and more extreme content in order to boost ad sale revenues and the value of user data that can also be sold or used to generate revenue. These algorithms result in siloing of people into information silos and such people are never exposed to contrary information or analyses. This results in radicalization. \nSo, one step would be to try to regulate the algorithms that private providers can use -- essentially require social media to use algorithms that link to opposing views. Kind of a new fairness doctrine for the internet as it used to exist for broadcast media. Enforcement would be difficult, and a fairness doctrine has its own issues (not least that it encourages false equivalencies -- some propositions cannot \"fairly\" be defended), but it would be a step in the right direction.", ">\n\nHere's the problem: Responsibility and accountability.\nA person on YouTube, Facebook or Reddit is held accountable. The other commenters will ask for burdens of proof and/or take them to task on misinformation, bias, etc.\nThe MEDIA however, is not faced with this. They either ignore criticism, or worse, use their voice and power to shout/cancel the individual taking them to task.\nThis applies also to our leaders we elect as well. They spout off whatever they want in committee, \"the floor\", or anywhere else, and yet when was the last time any one of them ever did jail time for obvious, blatant violations like perjury or conflicting interest?\nTo bring it back to the OP, the counter to misinformation is information. And honestly we're all responsible for that. We're all responsible for hearing something, verifying it's correct, then critically thinking about it, and then forming an opinion.\nThat's the beauty and duty of America and Americans. We're in charge of ourselves, so if we fail, we honestly have no one to blame but ourselves.", ">\n\nSince nobody can say anything that will actually be heard by anyone without the consent of an internetmedia mogul, said mogul's just need to ban lies. Take down the lies. After repeated offenses, close the account of the liars. Pretty simple really. Private companies can do that without hurting the 1st amendment. Unless SCOTUS decides it's de facto infringement because there is noplace left for liars to go. But why would anyone - even this crazy Supreme Court - want to protect liars?", ">\n\nYou could make a distinction between individuals and corporations and hold corporations to literally any standard above none." ]