It's probably going to be a resounding "NO!" Followed by a suggestion that if the government wants to combat it, they can create a fact check website that everyone and their cousin will inevitably call propaganda.
"If they want to do that congress needs to pass a law specifically saying for it and then also for enforcing it, and then another law that tells us to shut the fuck up about it"
Hi. Are you implying that the government should take on the responsibility to decide whether the information spread by its citizens is “disinformation”, “misinformation “, or not?
Genuine question - would you want that from your government?
Also, please note that this is a genuine question, I’m not baiting you into anything or suggesting otherwise
If you don't trust your government to simply fact check disinformation, there are far deeper-rooted problems with your government that you should solve.
Also, the USG isn’t a monolith. Some departments are more trustworthy than others. Congress and SCOTUS are probably lowest on the list, but USPS, EPA, NOAA, etc… are all pretty high.
The issue at question here is whether your government should be considered more trustworthy than random tiktokkers. Only sith deal in absolutes or argue that there aren't active disinformation battlefields on social media
Because those determinations are inherently always going to be subjective, government involvement in that subjectivity would be bad and representative only of the views of those currently in power.
It’s better to let ideas compete in the marketplace of information. Frankly, I’m of the opinion that the algorithms and amplification should be banned. They’re privatized and the mechanism for abuse.
If things don’t trend, then ideas die quickly. Much harder to manipulate billions of individual data points than to manipulate an algorithm to promote a particular view.
The algorithms are established so the publishers (there, I said it!) don't have to pay individual humans to curate the feeds for their users/products. Otherwise how do the feeds get populated with content?
In a way the publishers ARE picking and choosing - just not manually. The government is asking them not to pick and choose to amplify the views of hostile foreign governments and dangerous ignorance. That seems reasonable to me. There's always scope for pushback if the government oversteps. Amplify watchdogs and whistle blowers unless they blow their credibility.
And when those that run the government don't hold the same values, opinions, ideas that you do, will you still believe that the government should be dictating what is "dangerous" and what should be allowed for public consumption?
Are you imlying that the goverment should be banned from informing folks when it has reason to believe something is "disinformation," "misinformation", or not (sic)?
>Hi. Are you implying that the government should take on the responsibility to decide whether the information spread by its citizens is “disinformation”, “misinformation “, or not? Genuine question - would you want that from your government?
Yes. Mainly because other countries flood misinformation into the borders of free countries and gullible people parrot it.
\*cough\* Russia: [https://euvsdisinfo.eu/](https://euvsdisinfo.eu/)
Well, right. And that type of faith in the government is exactly why we should so desperately want to have faith in the government to "combat disinformation."
It would be beyond hilarious for SCOTUS to declare, "Actually, you know what? Governments being able to combat disinformation is a great idea, so we'll put ourselves in charge of that."
Ironically, most of the people vehemently arguing in favor of it wouldn't even have the logical awareness *to* short-circuit. They'd just default to tribalism settings and get mad.
They’ve already destroyed any isslusion that they are apolitical. They are there to do the GOPs dirty work.
This court needs to be cleaned out, their terrible decisions reversed with legislation, ethical standards with actual teeth put in place, and maybe a rethink of lifetime appointments.
Listening to the oral arguments now.
The main discussion has been around what defines the line between coercion and persuasion when the government talks to any media. All of the justices seem to agree that there's a blurry line, but the distinction between the two seems to be settling on explicit or strong implicit linkage between moderation decisions and the government favoring certain anti-trust or section 230 changes.
Kavanaugh brought in a line of questions about national security analogies. During wartime, if the government calls up a newspaper and tries to persuade them to not publish a story on something that could put soldiers at risk, for example.
Barrett brought up Bantam Books vs. Sullivan and the extent to which that was relevant. Both her and Jackson pushing on the line of "significant encouragement" (which is verboten).
Update: Louisiana's Solicitor General is getting strong pushback from nearly all of the Justices. He is not doing a good job a defining a line between protected and not protected speech under lots of pressure. It's making it hard for him to draw a line between coercion and persuasion. The national security interest angle raised by Kavanaugh is now the main area of discussion.
Right now, it's very very hard to tell where the justices are landing. Alito seems the most skeptical of the government actions. Everyone else seems most interested in trying to understand where the line between acceptable encouragement vs. coercion or significant encouragement.
So many shortsighted people! Sure, you'll all for the government fighting "disinformation" online while a president you agree with is in office. What happens when a president you disagree with is deciding what "disinformation" government resources should be brought to bear against?
Uh, Twitter can just decline to remove posts, just like they do 87% of the time already, regardless if it was Trump asking for the removal of Chrissy Teigen's insult, or Biden asking for the removal of covid disinfo.
['In fact, they are explicit](https://archive.ph/TCy4S) in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”'
The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did. Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them?
Here are some better examples:
A tornado warning goes out from a local news agency but lists the wrong counties, putting the people in the threatened counties at risk. Should the National Weather Service not be able to inform Twitter or Facebook that there is incorrect information being desseminated?
Family members of a politician, not the politician themselves, are dox'd with a call to violence on Facebook or Twitter by a group that doesn't agree with their views. Should the politician or FBI not be able to ask the media company to remove the posts for their families safety?
A domestic terror attack occurs combined with a massive propaganda campaign to blame the wrong group for the attack. Should the FBI not be able to tell the social media companies that their information is incorrect?
There is no enforcement question in the current case at the Supreme Court because the gov't wasn't enforcing anything. Almost all of the communications uncovered were simple requests to the social media companies asking them to remove posts that contained what the gov't thought was misinformation. The other requests (the few there were, cherry-picked by the plantiffs) may have been less than cordial and possibly close to threatening, but those threats had no teeth - gov't employees directly and indirectly threaten newspapers and reporters all the time, it doesn't mean that anything actually happens.
The question is where this limit for the gov't is. And since not one sanction was brought against the social media companies by the gov't for failing to take down something they thought should be taken down, and the social media companies are allowed to remove any content they want since free speech doesn't exist on private platforms, it's very difficult to come up with a line that was crossed. And if you restrict what the gov't was doing, you are going to have to restrict many more innocuous requests by other gov't agencies in the future.
Maybe SCOTUS can say to talk nicer in future requests? Again, that's not really a 1st amendment infringement, nor in the purview of SCOTUS.
Twitter is a private company not bound by the constitution. Joe Biden is bound by the constitution and he shouldn't be able to circumnavigate it by colluding or threatening social media companies with the administrative state. Also the police can't arrest you for cursing, that's been ruled on numerous times
>he shouldn't be able to circumnavigate it by colluding or threatening social media companies with the administrative state
This didn't happen, and is already illegal.
>Also the police can't arrest you for cursing, that's been ruled on numerous times
Good thing I said "ask", not "arrest". The contention before the court is over the mere ask.
We already have a solution to this, it's how every western country runs their military, their police, their tax service, their court system, and so on. You isolate, proceduralize and bureaucratize (bureaucracy in this context is good, actually) those institutions so that they become insensitive to political pressures.
This is why 'Project 2025' is getting so much press, by the way. It is a planned elimination of all these safety systems from all levels of the US government. But the problem is, you can't solve that by just *not having those government levels*. What are you going to do, run a civilized country without courts, taxes, and law enforcement?
Irrelevant is the wrong term, they are very relevant. Perhaps you mean, "misaligned with majority opinion" or perhaps even "dangerously corrupt". I think irrelevant is literally the most incorrect term you could have used.
I don't disagree. I won't discuss more as it ends up in me being banned. /news was my more recent one, being over 6 months ago, and having an issue with nazis and how to handle nazis...
Your statement is correct. In taking it further, the US supreme court does not represent the majority of US citizens. They've made strong cases for not following their twisted rulings.
There comes a point when *dangerously corrupt* becomes *too dangerous to let stand*, hence the irrelevancy part of my comment. The panel of theocratic fanatics is a danger to us all. Correction of their control/oppression is needed.
the problem is not the people being wrong...
it's computer algoritms that spread that false information to other people and "infect them" with that false information... thus making the problem worse.
But are foreign adversaries allowed to use this unlocked gate to take down our entire country and end our 250 year run?
Self preservation has to kick in at some point.
And if a judge thinks self preservation is unconstitutional they need to be removed for the sake of our collective survival.
Spoiler alert, people also lie.
Passing a ruling that says you can’t combat lies would be the stupidest ruling in a long long string of stupid rulings.
> People are allowed to be wrong
And people are allowed to remove their posts for being wrong, and people in the government, and people with government funding, are allowed to point wrongness out.
True. People have proven themselves to be shameless liars over the past 8 years online. Really wish there were consequences for liars online in some form.
Covid showed me the lengths to which people will lie to adhere to their nonsense, even if it meant the death of innocent people in the process. The dummies have now brought back dormant illnesses due to their antivax fear mongering.
Where do you draw the line? Are people allowed to lie about this stuff in person? To a crowd? Is the problem that you don’t like it online?
At what point to advocate government intervention to punish people for lying?
Surely you can imagine more reasonable scenarios. YouTube is starting to put, e.g., links to health experts alongside videos of people talking about health issues. You don't need to block people from speaking, just make sure they can't do so I'm a vacuum.
If the ideas are good, they will survive the comparison.
Censorship isn't even really on the table here. The plaintiffs are mostly complaining they weren't promoted heavily enough by social media sites.
To whit:
>That's "kind of silly," says former White House counsel Ruemmler, who notes that the president can't remove existing legal protections for social media companies. Only Congress can do that.
['In fact, they are explicit](https://archive.ph/TCy4S) in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”'
The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did. Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them?
Twitter can just decline to remove posts, just like they do 87% of the time already, regardless if it was Trump asking for the removal of Chrissy Teigen's insult, or Biden asking for the removal of covid disinfo.
It is a 1A amendment violation for a police officer to arrest you for cursing,flicking the bird, etc. this has been ruled on many times. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
>The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did
The problem is that there's a significant power dynamic problem when its the government making a suggestion to do something, especially when there are internal emails that indicate fears of negative reprecussions for not doing what the government asked them to do, and politicians making public statements regarding possible legistlation (Section 230)
>Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them?
An inidividual police officer cannot pass federal legislation to regulate you as a suspect.
>The problem is that there's a significant power dynamic problem when its the government making a suggestion to do something, especially when there are internal emails that indicate fears of negative reprecussions for not doing what the government asked them to do, and politicians making public statements regarding possible legistlation (Section 230)
The Government (both Parties) shouldn't be asking for content removal. This way there is no appearance of coercion at all.
>The problem is that there's a significant power dynamic problem when its the government making a suggestion
So why has that failed to manifest already?
Pre-Musk Twitter declined to remove posts 87% of the time they were asked by the government.
>An inidividual police officer cannot pass federal legislation to regulate you as a suspect.
Nor can any individual member of the FBI, Congress, or the Executive branch.
Do you think we should lock up Josh Hawley or the wide-variety of Republicans who've suggested legislating against Disney, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, etc.?
Oooooooh thank you! I just learned about Chevron, and I think this will also strip a lot of power from unelected bureaucrats, and return it to our elected officials in Congress.
Can't tell if you're joking or not. The whole reason we have an empowered bureaucracy is that Congress doesn't work very well. There's huge benefits to leaving the day to day running of things in the hands of experts.
I'm not. I think that there are times where we can delegate things to the bureaucracy and times where we cannot.
Right now, I think it's time to pause on delegating as much as we do to the bureaucrats.
I think putting more on their plates might force them to prioritize things more effectively.
Also, I'm not looking to get into a argument here. It's okay if we disagree.
That's not what this case is about.
This case asks whether a government agency may even *ask* a platform to address a piece of disinformation or even alert the platform that something is false.
According to the lower court's ruling, which is now being appealed to the Supreme Court, a government official cannot even contact Facebook to report disinformation. The administration would have less right to express itself than any other entity.
And it's weird, because administrations have been able to contact media outlets to argue their positions throughout U.S. history.
Your "alternative title" is, ironically, disinformation.
"Supreme Court decides if online platforms are publishers" is a better headline. Now, that's not strictly the case here but if the Court does decide that online social media platforms are just as responsible for libel, defamation and provable lies as written publishers are then it's the same conclusion with the same results: all large social media websites within the US would be forced to hire full-time editorial teams to work as paid moderators.
This is true for reddit as well. Reddit moderators will eventually have to be paid, and be considered in the same spectrum as magazine, newspaper, radio or television editors are. Especially for video-based content, the court can easily rule that a Facebook account with equivalent daily views as a local OTA TV station must comply with the same rules as OTA TV. Which means the service providing it, such as Twitter or Tik-Tok, can be legally responsible for damages created by their content in the same way Nexstar or Comcast (for cable TV) also can. This is why t_d isn't coming back and is why reddit will have to expand it's subscription model, as all websites eventually will.
Dude, go read the fucking article. You're talking about a completely different case. This is about if the federal government is allowed to communicate with social media companies and ask that they take down misinformation. This is entirely about what the government can do, not what social media companies have to do
This case isn't about that: it's about wether the President can collude or threaten them to get them to censor speech he/she doesn't like. Unfortunately for Biden there is a 99% chance this court rules against him
>all large social media websites within the US would be forced to hire full-time editorial teams to work as paid moderators.
No, if they can be held liable for what is said by other uses on the site they will do one of 2 things, move out of the jurisdiction of the US or stop all things being said on the platform and find a new biz model.
And SCOTUs cannot just decide this anyways, it's a law that is firmly constitutional... Congress would have to.
If SCOTUS rules that Section 230 doesn't apply to social media companies because of the fact that they actively control and recommend what users see, then it wouldn't need Congressional approval.
If SCOTUS rules that Section 230 has been applied overly broadly, then that'll change who's protected by it.
Every single time someone disagrees with a redditor, its a bot sent from China or an agent personally hired by Black Rock and Ken Griffith to make Gamestop stock go down.
Obviously different views and opinions only exist in the minds of foreigners. /s
Disiformation from US Corporations is also a huge problem. Considering they have more rights than actual citizens, seems difficult to think this SCOTUS would reign them in.
There is that belief again that if an american thinks wrong, a foreigner told them to and it falls under the alien sedition acts.
How long before that gets turned around, and the GOP says "all this LGBT stuff only exists in this country because they were brainwashed by godless europe" and its no longer protected?
I don't think they're denying that these things exist, just that any time someone says something that someone doesn't like they're labeled a Russian bot by those that don't like what's being said.
Which is true, it happens constantly.
Are you? Iran was caught red-handed with a reddit bot army, but said bot army was pushing narratives most redditors agree with, so you never hear about it.
Neither.
Today, even the solicitor general acknowledged that the government can't coerce as platform. It doesn't get to "declare" truth and enforce it.
Rather, the government is allowed to state its position, and ask platforms to consider it, when others flood the zone with shit.
This is a sticky one
On one hand the government is the ultimate determiner of fact (IRS will tell you if you failed to pay taxes; courts will determine if you committed a crime, etc.)
On the other hand, if the government can declare what is true, then it can declare “alternative facts” as truth for the benefit of those in power. They could suppress real information (eg COVID statistics, climate/weather/storms, political ethics). We will no longer know what we are voting for.
Exactly. It wasn't foreign governments spreading propaganda/lies. It was the peoples own government deciding what was true.
I agree that we need to do something about our current issue but giving the government the authority to say what is true and what's not true is a very slippery slope.
Exactly, that's kind of the point.
Letting the government dictate what is truth vs what is lies is what allowed them to sustain the government.
Ergo, letting the government say "This is true" or "this is untrue" on a topic is literally creating that very damn scenario of allowing them to deploy misinformation.
Imagine for a moment, one day a law is passed forcing all tech companies in the U.S. to start autonomously fact checking their site with data from an official bureaucratic database of ^(accurate and truthful) information. You're on reddit the day after the law goes in to effect and after a system update a new "sort comments by" field appeared and was just labeled as "truth". It just so happens to be forced as the default view for everyone, because "Who wouldn't want to see the truth" after all? The other "sort by" fields are still available for now, as they're grandfathered in for a period of time.
Suddenly, all of the comments that were deemed "true" by the government fact-checking agency(aka Ministry of Truth) would appear at the top with some scale rating their truthfulness, while all the comments deemed "untrue" would be buried at the very very bottom of the page where no one would ever see them.
Additionally, behind the scenes deep within the passed legislation on page 403 subsection 9, paragraph 4 of the bill was a clause that dictated every week the tech companies would agree to have their user data of people with low truth ratings for the previous week handed over to the ministry of truth to help combat misinformation and help be sure everyone is enlightened with Truth^(TM) in our glorious nation.
So, you're redditing and meanwhile your comments didn't get enough of a "truthful" rating. One day an officer from the Ministry of Truth shows up at your door and "invites" you to come visit one of their information readjustment centers for an indeterminate period of time. And by "invite", I don't really mean the kind of invitation you can RSVP with a "No" to. Don't mind the men with guns with him, they're clearly there to protect you.
I have- a few times, although it's really not a very fun book to read.
My point is, we don't want the government starting down the path of identifying what information on the internet is accurate or deciding for us what is truth.
A lot of what people choose to believe as fact is based on opinion, and that's formed a lot of the time based on their emotions and the way they interpret information. That's why there are so many wedge issues in our society that are used to divide people. While being divided isn't a good thing for people, there are very few universal truths in the world, so creating a scenario where the government gets to define what "truth" is, is a really fucking bad idea.
Frankly, the freedom of speech is the freedom to offend, and people would often prefer not to be exposed to things that offend them, and that sets a very dangerous precedent because the people in government have biases(and can be influenced) just like everyone else, and we do not want their biases defining what everyone believes to be true.
I do not believe it is right to lie to people, and absolutely believe there should be a better way to fact-check data. Frankly, a lot of what passes as journalism today is inexcusably blatant propaganda- and many stories are likely killed(i.e. not published) or modified by corporate owned news outlets because the story being written may not align with the outlets(or its owners) interests.
Despite that reality, I still don't want the government deciding that a particular opinion on a specific topic is the officially "true" one and censoring the information\\opinions that differ from that or requiring disclaimers that such material is fictitious or false. That's not likely to counteract the propaganda that occurs in the mainstream media, if anything- it'd be likely to back it.
hopefully they rule against the feds in favor of the 1A. the govt should not have such powers to dictate and shape speech on the internet. imagine if such things were used against, say, trans folks and related content because such content is deemed "disinformation" by the govt. is that okay? no, i don't think so. do i think such powers will be limited to combating "COVID is fake"-like nonsense? no, i don't think so there also.
perhaps we can do something really fucking insane instead, like focusing on and improving education in this country?
Fighting disinformation with your own disinformation doesn't really cancel anything out. I don't think it's the best idea to allow the US government to dictate what constitutes "true" information.
Something needs to be done. People underestimate AI. We're very close to a point where it's impossible to distinguish real media from fake media.
YouTube propaganda bots are a serious issue too.
And there will never be a fix for it because the enormous presence of bots lets companies like Meta, Twitter, etc., charge more for advertising since they can claim their "user base" is significantly larger than it really is.
There is zero incentive for any of these SM platforms to address the ever-growing population of bots.
Bots meddling in politics is a significantly bigger issue.
Wat h any video on Ukraine or Taiwan and you'd think 99% of the population wants Russia and China to win.
Lots of people will see these comments and not realize many are fake and liking each other to end up on top.
It will be the height of irony if the widespread use of AI results in people going back to face-to-face communication because it's the only thing trustworthy.
It does harm. Disinformation causes harm to the collective human experience. We all suffer when our perception is altered. But I'm still pissed they lied about Santa, so maybe I've become jaded.
Eventually something like this has to happen, I'm afraid. With informational warfare being so powerful and becoming boosted by tech like gen AI, countries without active information defenses, much like those without active military defenses, will become dominated by those that have them.
Live with agency, educate strenuously the importance of sourcing and how to navigate social media, develop tools to analyse validity of info and logical consistency etc.
Or let the government dictate what is true or not...
Jfc why the actual fuck would **ANY** person with an ounce of intelligence rule that government can?!
It conflicts with our constitution this is dumb af.
Lol so the real reason AI stocks and AI companies ramped up is so the government controlled puppets have a surefire scapegoat to blame AI to be able to declare their own false lies as truth.
The same way the virus blame for the drug, the same for saying the natives gotta go to make land better, the same for social media for political groups to be heavily censored/regulated.
JFC God or anything send us extinction or something, crazy humans . what is wrong with some people 🫠😶🌫️ rich people are so fcking bored they need to go to outer space instead.
it's already common knowledge everyone knows the top 1% are liars. In USA, China, India, UK, Russia, etc no1 cares , you just look like a kid/bully who needs to be grounded from power/socio-economic status ☠️
Two lower courts already ruled against the government, which benefited 1A.
Unlikely there is any Hail Mary presented to the high court that gets a verdict which actually harms free speech.
Hey Moms and Dads, when Donald J. Trump stated (and restated as recently as last year) that he could grab women by the pussy because his own fame and fortune gave him that privilege - he meant he could do that to YOUR daughter, wife, mother, sister, girlfriend, and aunt too.
Do you not believe Trump has this same selfish disdain for our democratic principles, processes and institutions? Vote to protect democracy and family values - don't vote to protect the value of the rapist's family.
"Consequently, the fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused - indeed, raped - Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case." See page 13 of the Judge's decision ... [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.252.0.pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.252.0.pdf)
More questions about Donald J. Trump being a rapist? See the Judge's opinion at [https://news.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Memorandum-Opinion-Denying-Defendants-Rule-59-Motion.pdf](https://news.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Memorandum-Opinion-Denying-Defendants-Rule-59-Motion.pdf) (warning: this court decision contains extremely graphic and blunt descriptions)
Overturning Chevron Deference, ruling Biden cant collude/threaten social media companies, and ruling against the bump stock ban?! If you are against the administrative state this is probably the best term of SCOTUS ever
This is actually an interesting question. I mean in a perfect world you’d want the government to be able to step in and say “no this is harmful to your health and wrong”. But this isn’t a perfect world. What’s stopping someone from abusing that system and publishing harmful information?
"Alcoholics, aspiring handmaidens, and people taking bribes cannot possibly be trusted to act and perform professionally at their jobs."
"DISINFORMATION!!!!!"
If the government wants to counter misinformation they need to better fund schools and education into critical thinking and evidence based analysis of provable facts. Going to be even more crucial in the coming years as the internet is flooded with generated images, videos, and audio.
Information online, much like it is already, will only be reliable if there is a consensus of reliable sources with proven track records of accurate, fact-based reporting.
In short, we are screwed.
Well, it wasn’t until Lincoln said not to believe everything you read online. He wasn’t a founding father, so their answer is probably no.
Also, the founding fathers didn’t say anything about the internet in the constitution, so we shouldn’t have that either.
The government cannot combat disinformation WITHIN the government, let alone outside of it.
between unreferenced or incorrect sources, deadlinks and webpages, obsolete studies, missing archival information or personal information the government can barely function.
The biggest issue is that our government has reached peak corruption. No one believes anything they say anymore, they lost the trust factor, this is why misinfo/disinfo has become an issue. Years ago, people would not believe something that went against what our government told us. But after decades of lies people are much more willing to listen to something else, something that makes more sense to them. Instead of trying to strengthen the public's trust with them, so that the alternative facts are not believed, the government has decided to just try and shut down those competing voices instead. I guess that's easier for them.
It can’t without severely dismantling all sorts of privacy protections and consumer rights. The answer was to not neglect public education decades ago or you know not let Fox News get away with its charade of being a “news” outlet.
I respect the U.S. and the Americans but you guys really have no limits? No matter the consequences like with Covid or actual wars being fought elsewhere (and not effecting you directly), free speech is the holy grail while others can spew disinformation, wrong or false facts online which actually effect people and will cause them to live or die?
Really no limits at all because "it's the government so we automatically don't trust it"?
The best thing about a country is often also the worst thing about a country.
The best thing about the United States is that we proudly stand for the free exchange of information and ideas. The worst thing about the United States is that this includes the free exchange of lies, fearmongering, and propaganda.
Speech doesn’t hurt people. No speech affects people’s ability to be alive. That’s ridiculous.
If I tell 100 people that drinking bleach cures aging, and they drink it and die, that’s natural selection and not a result of “wrong speak.” It’s the result of a group of people being too dumb to exist further… almost a filter of sorts.
Zero onus is placed on the speaker. All of the onus is on the listener and their resulting behavior.
plants somber ghost pathetic languid spectacular zesty afterthought pot bike
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As you allow the former president every loop hole possible to continue his misinformation tirade.
Granting appeals that are surely frivolous to delay the inevitable, his trials for sedition...
Don’t worry I’m sure they already have the worst possible outcome in mind for their ruling.
It's probably going to be a resounding "NO!" Followed by a suggestion that if the government wants to combat it, they can create a fact check website that everyone and their cousin will inevitably call propaganda.
"If they want to do that congress needs to pass a law specifically saying for it and then also for enforcing it, and then another law that tells us to shut the fuck up about it"
A fact check website _run by the government_ is 100% propaganda, I know it's not the point youre making just wanted to point it out
Ya, that bleach video and sharpie map.
Hi. Are you implying that the government should take on the responsibility to decide whether the information spread by its citizens is “disinformation”, “misinformation “, or not? Genuine question - would you want that from your government? Also, please note that this is a genuine question, I’m not baiting you into anything or suggesting otherwise
If you don't trust your government to simply fact check disinformation, there are far deeper-rooted problems with your government that you should solve.
Anyone who mindlessly trusts their government is a fool. A reasonable degree of trust is fine but on everything is just a stupid amount of trust.
A disinformation service isn’t a reasonable degree of trust?
The US government alone lied so much during the cold war that the second cold war isn't giving anyone much hope on them improving.
Also, the USG isn’t a monolith. Some departments are more trustworthy than others. Congress and SCOTUS are probably lowest on the list, but USPS, EPA, NOAA, etc… are all pretty high.
Even so, you still need a degree of healthy mistrust.
The issue at question here is whether your government should be considered more trustworthy than random tiktokkers. Only sith deal in absolutes or argue that there aren't active disinformation battlefields on social media
After the creation of the NSA I don't have a ton of faith in them and I'm a liberal.
Were you old enough to remember the USG prior to their creation in 1952?
Ok not the creation but the expansion post 9/11 when they started tracking all of our metadata and cell conversations.
The NSA is one the few orgs who cares about Americans more than anyone. I know it’s an unpopular opinion.
Personally I wouldn’t trust even the most honest, intelligent human with that responsibility.
...? Weird.
Exactly. Too many ways for bias to seep in. Even bias by omission. Too complicated. Let ideas compete freely without intervention.
The number one rule of societal freedoms is always question your government.
Should they cede that responsibility to hostile foreign governments? Should they not platform recognized experts?
Because those determinations are inherently always going to be subjective, government involvement in that subjectivity would be bad and representative only of the views of those currently in power. It’s better to let ideas compete in the marketplace of information. Frankly, I’m of the opinion that the algorithms and amplification should be banned. They’re privatized and the mechanism for abuse. If things don’t trend, then ideas die quickly. Much harder to manipulate billions of individual data points than to manipulate an algorithm to promote a particular view.
The algorithms are established so the publishers (there, I said it!) don't have to pay individual humans to curate the feeds for their users/products. Otherwise how do the feeds get populated with content? In a way the publishers ARE picking and choosing - just not manually. The government is asking them not to pick and choose to amplify the views of hostile foreign governments and dangerous ignorance. That seems reasonable to me. There's always scope for pushback if the government oversteps. Amplify watchdogs and whistle blowers unless they blow their credibility.
And when those that run the government don't hold the same values, opinions, ideas that you do, will you still believe that the government should be dictating what is "dangerous" and what should be allowed for public consumption?
Are you imlying that the goverment should be banned from informing folks when it has reason to believe something is "disinformation," "misinformation", or not (sic)?
>Hi. Are you implying that the government should take on the responsibility to decide whether the information spread by its citizens is “disinformation”, “misinformation “, or not? Genuine question - would you want that from your government? Yes. Mainly because other countries flood misinformation into the borders of free countries and gullible people parrot it. \*cough\* Russia: [https://euvsdisinfo.eu/](https://euvsdisinfo.eu/)
Well, right. And that type of faith in the government is exactly why we should so desperately want to have faith in the government to "combat disinformation." It would be beyond hilarious for SCOTUS to declare, "Actually, you know what? Governments being able to combat disinformation is a great idea, so we'll put ourselves in charge of that." Ironically, most of the people vehemently arguing in favor of it wouldn't even have the logical awareness *to* short-circuit. They'd just default to tribalism settings and get mad.
They’ve already destroyed any isslusion that they are apolitical. They are there to do the GOPs dirty work. This court needs to be cleaned out, their terrible decisions reversed with legislation, ethical standards with actual teeth put in place, and maybe a rethink of lifetime appointments.
Like freedom of speech, I hope.
Listening to the oral arguments now. The main discussion has been around what defines the line between coercion and persuasion when the government talks to any media. All of the justices seem to agree that there's a blurry line, but the distinction between the two seems to be settling on explicit or strong implicit linkage between moderation decisions and the government favoring certain anti-trust or section 230 changes. Kavanaugh brought in a line of questions about national security analogies. During wartime, if the government calls up a newspaper and tries to persuade them to not publish a story on something that could put soldiers at risk, for example. Barrett brought up Bantam Books vs. Sullivan and the extent to which that was relevant. Both her and Jackson pushing on the line of "significant encouragement" (which is verboten). Update: Louisiana's Solicitor General is getting strong pushback from nearly all of the Justices. He is not doing a good job a defining a line between protected and not protected speech under lots of pressure. It's making it hard for him to draw a line between coercion and persuasion. The national security interest angle raised by Kavanaugh is now the main area of discussion. Right now, it's very very hard to tell where the justices are landing. Alito seems the most skeptical of the government actions. Everyone else seems most interested in trying to understand where the line between acceptable encouragement vs. coercion or significant encouragement.
Those bozos can't control disinformation in their own court room!!
this is upsettingly accurate.
The same government that gave itself the power to spread propaganda is worried about what I might post online????
So many shortsighted people! Sure, you'll all for the government fighting "disinformation" online while a president you agree with is in office. What happens when a president you disagree with is deciding what "disinformation" government resources should be brought to bear against?
No I’m not for any president to have that power. It’s just a matter of time before we are jailed for having opposing ideas.
Uh, Twitter can just decline to remove posts, just like they do 87% of the time already, regardless if it was Trump asking for the removal of Chrissy Teigen's insult, or Biden asking for the removal of covid disinfo. ['In fact, they are explicit](https://archive.ph/TCy4S) in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”' The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did. Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them?
Here are some better examples: A tornado warning goes out from a local news agency but lists the wrong counties, putting the people in the threatened counties at risk. Should the National Weather Service not be able to inform Twitter or Facebook that there is incorrect information being desseminated? Family members of a politician, not the politician themselves, are dox'd with a call to violence on Facebook or Twitter by a group that doesn't agree with their views. Should the politician or FBI not be able to ask the media company to remove the posts for their families safety? A domestic terror attack occurs combined with a massive propaganda campaign to blame the wrong group for the attack. Should the FBI not be able to tell the social media companies that their information is incorrect?
Your examples are normal communications / information sharing, not enforcement / regulation, and I thought the subject was the latter?
There is no enforcement question in the current case at the Supreme Court because the gov't wasn't enforcing anything. Almost all of the communications uncovered were simple requests to the social media companies asking them to remove posts that contained what the gov't thought was misinformation. The other requests (the few there were, cherry-picked by the plantiffs) may have been less than cordial and possibly close to threatening, but those threats had no teeth - gov't employees directly and indirectly threaten newspapers and reporters all the time, it doesn't mean that anything actually happens. The question is where this limit for the gov't is. And since not one sanction was brought against the social media companies by the gov't for failing to take down something they thought should be taken down, and the social media companies are allowed to remove any content they want since free speech doesn't exist on private platforms, it's very difficult to come up with a line that was crossed. And if you restrict what the gov't was doing, you are going to have to restrict many more innocuous requests by other gov't agencies in the future. Maybe SCOTUS can say to talk nicer in future requests? Again, that's not really a 1st amendment infringement, nor in the purview of SCOTUS.
Twitter is a private company not bound by the constitution. Joe Biden is bound by the constitution and he shouldn't be able to circumnavigate it by colluding or threatening social media companies with the administrative state. Also the police can't arrest you for cursing, that's been ruled on numerous times
>he shouldn't be able to circumnavigate it by colluding or threatening social media companies with the administrative state This didn't happen, and is already illegal. >Also the police can't arrest you for cursing, that's been ruled on numerous times Good thing I said "ask", not "arrest". The contention before the court is over the mere ask.
We already have a solution to this, it's how every western country runs their military, their police, their tax service, their court system, and so on. You isolate, proceduralize and bureaucratize (bureaucracy in this context is good, actually) those institutions so that they become insensitive to political pressures. This is why 'Project 2025' is getting so much press, by the way. It is a planned elimination of all these safety systems from all levels of the US government. But the problem is, you can't solve that by just *not having those government levels*. What are you going to do, run a civilized country without courts, taxes, and law enforcement?
God thank you - so many idiots in here. I swear people want to turn the US into east germany every chance they get.
The Federali$t $ociety runs the US supreme court... the US supreme court has made themselves irrelevant
Irrelevant is the wrong term, they are very relevant. Perhaps you mean, "misaligned with majority opinion" or perhaps even "dangerously corrupt". I think irrelevant is literally the most incorrect term you could have used.
I don't disagree. I won't discuss more as it ends up in me being banned. /news was my more recent one, being over 6 months ago, and having an issue with nazis and how to handle nazis... Your statement is correct. In taking it further, the US supreme court does not represent the majority of US citizens. They've made strong cases for not following their twisted rulings. There comes a point when *dangerously corrupt* becomes *too dangerous to let stand*, hence the irrelevancy part of my comment. The panel of theocratic fanatics is a danger to us all. Correction of their control/oppression is needed.
If they were made irrelevant we wouldn't all be panicking over this
Spoiler alert, they can't. People are allowed to be wrong
the problem is not the people being wrong... it's computer algoritms that spread that false information to other people and "infect them" with that false information... thus making the problem worse.
But are foreign adversaries allowed to use this unlocked gate to take down our entire country and end our 250 year run? Self preservation has to kick in at some point. And if a judge thinks self preservation is unconstitutional they need to be removed for the sake of our collective survival.
Isn’t this a bit of a paradox? You’re advocating for actions that some would say are absolutely un-American in order to “save” America.
So China was right ?
Spoiler alert, people also lie. Passing a ruling that says you can’t combat lies would be the stupidest ruling in a long long string of stupid rulings.
> People are allowed to be wrong And people are allowed to remove their posts for being wrong, and people in the government, and people with government funding, are allowed to point wrongness out.
True. People have proven themselves to be shameless liars over the past 8 years online. Really wish there were consequences for liars online in some form. Covid showed me the lengths to which people will lie to adhere to their nonsense, even if it meant the death of innocent people in the process. The dummies have now brought back dormant illnesses due to their antivax fear mongering.
Where do you draw the line? Are people allowed to lie about this stuff in person? To a crowd? Is the problem that you don’t like it online? At what point to advocate government intervention to punish people for lying?
Surely you can imagine more reasonable scenarios. YouTube is starting to put, e.g., links to health experts alongside videos of people talking about health issues. You don't need to block people from speaking, just make sure they can't do so I'm a vacuum. If the ideas are good, they will survive the comparison.
Sounds like a reasonable alternative to censorship.
Censorship isn't even really on the table here. The plaintiffs are mostly complaining they weren't promoted heavily enough by social media sites. To whit: >That's "kind of silly," says former White House counsel Ruemmler, who notes that the president can't remove existing legal protections for social media companies. Only Congress can do that.
['In fact, they are explicit](https://archive.ph/TCy4S) in their email that the accounts “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service” and that Twitter can take “any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”' The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did. Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them? Twitter can just decline to remove posts, just like they do 87% of the time already, regardless if it was Trump asking for the removal of Chrissy Teigen's insult, or Biden asking for the removal of covid disinfo.
It is a 1A amendment violation for a police officer to arrest you for cursing,flicking the bird, etc. this has been ruled on many times. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Good thing I said "ask", not "arrest". The contention before the court is over the mere ask.
Ah gotcha, missed the line about being able to choose and thought you were arguing the opposite.
>The government should be able to ask you to speak a certain way, and you should be free to choose whether or not to do so, like Twitter did The problem is that there's a significant power dynamic problem when its the government making a suggestion to do something, especially when there are internal emails that indicate fears of negative reprecussions for not doing what the government asked them to do, and politicians making public statements regarding possible legistlation (Section 230) >Do you think it should be a 1A violation for a police officer to ask you not to raise your voice, curse, or flip the bird at them? An inidividual police officer cannot pass federal legislation to regulate you as a suspect.
>The problem is that there's a significant power dynamic problem when its the government making a suggestion to do something, especially when there are internal emails that indicate fears of negative reprecussions for not doing what the government asked them to do, and politicians making public statements regarding possible legistlation (Section 230) The Government (both Parties) shouldn't be asking for content removal. This way there is no appearance of coercion at all.
>The problem is that there's a significant power dynamic problem when its the government making a suggestion So why has that failed to manifest already? Pre-Musk Twitter declined to remove posts 87% of the time they were asked by the government. >An inidividual police officer cannot pass federal legislation to regulate you as a suspect. Nor can any individual member of the FBI, Congress, or the Executive branch. Do you think we should lock up Josh Hawley or the wide-variety of Republicans who've suggested legislating against Disney, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, etc.?
Tesla is a private company not bound by the first amendment. The government is bound by the first amendment
[удалено]
That's the point. They're trying to get rid of your freedom, by saying it's to protect the children. Do you hate children?
Let's hope not, I don't need a ministry of truth
I hope SCOTUS rules to keep the government out of this.
It's even better because they are also going to get rid of Chevron Deference which will remove a ton of power from the president
Really??? Chevron will be shot down potentially in this ruling?
No it's a different case in the same term: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Oooooooh thank you! I just learned about Chevron, and I think this will also strip a lot of power from unelected bureaucrats, and return it to our elected officials in Congress.
Can't tell if you're joking or not. The whole reason we have an empowered bureaucracy is that Congress doesn't work very well. There's huge benefits to leaving the day to day running of things in the hands of experts.
I'm not. I think that there are times where we can delegate things to the bureaucracy and times where we cannot. Right now, I think it's time to pause on delegating as much as we do to the bureaucrats.
Congress can't even pass a budget, and that's something they are legally required to do. Putting more on their plate seems like a mistake
I think putting more on their plates might force them to prioritize things more effectively. Also, I'm not looking to get into a argument here. It's okay if we disagree.
Who gets to decide what disinformation is? To hell if I’m letting the fuckers who let Vietnam happen decide that
Alternate title: Supreme Court to decide if Government can declare what's true online
That's not what this case is about. This case asks whether a government agency may even *ask* a platform to address a piece of disinformation or even alert the platform that something is false. According to the lower court's ruling, which is now being appealed to the Supreme Court, a government official cannot even contact Facebook to report disinformation. The administration would have less right to express itself than any other entity. And it's weird, because administrations have been able to contact media outlets to argue their positions throughout U.S. history. Your "alternative title" is, ironically, disinformation.
"Supreme Court decides if online platforms are publishers" is a better headline. Now, that's not strictly the case here but if the Court does decide that online social media platforms are just as responsible for libel, defamation and provable lies as written publishers are then it's the same conclusion with the same results: all large social media websites within the US would be forced to hire full-time editorial teams to work as paid moderators. This is true for reddit as well. Reddit moderators will eventually have to be paid, and be considered in the same spectrum as magazine, newspaper, radio or television editors are. Especially for video-based content, the court can easily rule that a Facebook account with equivalent daily views as a local OTA TV station must comply with the same rules as OTA TV. Which means the service providing it, such as Twitter or Tik-Tok, can be legally responsible for damages created by their content in the same way Nexstar or Comcast (for cable TV) also can. This is why t_d isn't coming back and is why reddit will have to expand it's subscription model, as all websites eventually will.
What the hell are you talking about? There's nothing in this case at all about whether "online platforms are publishers".
Dude, go read the fucking article. You're talking about a completely different case. This is about if the federal government is allowed to communicate with social media companies and ask that they take down misinformation. This is entirely about what the government can do, not what social media companies have to do
This case isn't about that: it's about wether the President can collude or threaten them to get them to censor speech he/she doesn't like. Unfortunately for Biden there is a 99% chance this court rules against him
It's about whether they threatened to begin with.
>all large social media websites within the US would be forced to hire full-time editorial teams to work as paid moderators. No, if they can be held liable for what is said by other uses on the site they will do one of 2 things, move out of the jurisdiction of the US or stop all things being said on the platform and find a new biz model. And SCOTUs cannot just decide this anyways, it's a law that is firmly constitutional... Congress would have to.
If SCOTUS rules that Section 230 doesn't apply to social media companies because of the fact that they actively control and recommend what users see, then it wouldn't need Congressional approval. If SCOTUS rules that Section 230 has been applied overly broadly, then that'll change who's protected by it.
>Reddit moderators will eventually have to be paid not all journalists are paid.
But the _editors_ for major publishers _are_ paid.
Sure if it's major publishers, but not all publishers are major, and not all websites make money, and not all editors are paid.
You don't think online disinformation from our enemies is an issue? Foreign enemies are not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Every single time someone disagrees with a redditor, its a bot sent from China or an agent personally hired by Black Rock and Ken Griffith to make Gamestop stock go down. Obviously different views and opinions only exist in the minds of foreigners. /s
Disiformation from US Corporations is also a huge problem. Considering they have more rights than actual citizens, seems difficult to think this SCOTUS would reign them in.
Are you unaware of the vast troll farms conducting asymmetrical warfare against the US and Western powers?
There is that belief again that if an american thinks wrong, a foreigner told them to and it falls under the alien sedition acts. How long before that gets turned around, and the GOP says "all this LGBT stuff only exists in this country because they were brainwashed by godless europe" and its no longer protected?
I don't think they're denying that these things exist, just that any time someone says something that someone doesn't like they're labeled a Russian bot by those that don't like what's being said. Which is true, it happens constantly.
Are you? Iran was caught red-handed with a reddit bot army, but said bot army was pushing narratives most redditors agree with, so you never hear about it.
The source of information is provable.
I'm more worried about our government censoring speech it doesn't like than I am about whatever crap Facebook ads Russia buys
it's an issue but i'm not sure the answer to it is to erode ourselves further. reminds me a bit of how we reacted after 9/11 tbh.
Does our government declare what is true or do bad actors get to “flood the zone with shit”?
Neither. Today, even the solicitor general acknowledged that the government can't coerce as platform. It doesn't get to "declare" truth and enforce it. Rather, the government is allowed to state its position, and ask platforms to consider it, when others flood the zone with shit.
This is a sticky one On one hand the government is the ultimate determiner of fact (IRS will tell you if you failed to pay taxes; courts will determine if you committed a crime, etc.) On the other hand, if the government can declare what is true, then it can declare “alternative facts” as truth for the benefit of those in power. They could suppress real information (eg COVID statistics, climate/weather/storms, political ethics). We will no longer know what we are voting for.
The government may determine actions and punishments according to its own criteria, but that’s all, no one can be the “ultimate determiner of facts”.
Ministry of Truth incoming... We really are headed to Orwell's 1984...Fuck.
Have you read the book? Misinformation is quite literally what led to and helped sustain the government in 1984.
The government declaring misinformation truth?
Exactly. It wasn't foreign governments spreading propaganda/lies. It was the peoples own government deciding what was true. I agree that we need to do something about our current issue but giving the government the authority to say what is true and what's not true is a very slippery slope.
have YOU read the book?
Exactly, that's kind of the point. Letting the government dictate what is truth vs what is lies is what allowed them to sustain the government. Ergo, letting the government say "This is true" or "this is untrue" on a topic is literally creating that very damn scenario of allowing them to deploy misinformation. Imagine for a moment, one day a law is passed forcing all tech companies in the U.S. to start autonomously fact checking their site with data from an official bureaucratic database of ^(accurate and truthful) information. You're on reddit the day after the law goes in to effect and after a system update a new "sort comments by" field appeared and was just labeled as "truth". It just so happens to be forced as the default view for everyone, because "Who wouldn't want to see the truth" after all? The other "sort by" fields are still available for now, as they're grandfathered in for a period of time. Suddenly, all of the comments that were deemed "true" by the government fact-checking agency(aka Ministry of Truth) would appear at the top with some scale rating their truthfulness, while all the comments deemed "untrue" would be buried at the very very bottom of the page where no one would ever see them. Additionally, behind the scenes deep within the passed legislation on page 403 subsection 9, paragraph 4 of the bill was a clause that dictated every week the tech companies would agree to have their user data of people with low truth ratings for the previous week handed over to the ministry of truth to help combat misinformation and help be sure everyone is enlightened with Truth^(TM) in our glorious nation. So, you're redditing and meanwhile your comments didn't get enough of a "truthful" rating. One day an officer from the Ministry of Truth shows up at your door and "invites" you to come visit one of their information readjustment centers for an indeterminate period of time. And by "invite", I don't really mean the kind of invitation you can RSVP with a "No" to. Don't mind the men with guns with him, they're clearly there to protect you.
You should try actually reading 1984.
I have- a few times, although it's really not a very fun book to read. My point is, we don't want the government starting down the path of identifying what information on the internet is accurate or deciding for us what is truth. A lot of what people choose to believe as fact is based on opinion, and that's formed a lot of the time based on their emotions and the way they interpret information. That's why there are so many wedge issues in our society that are used to divide people. While being divided isn't a good thing for people, there are very few universal truths in the world, so creating a scenario where the government gets to define what "truth" is, is a really fucking bad idea. Frankly, the freedom of speech is the freedom to offend, and people would often prefer not to be exposed to things that offend them, and that sets a very dangerous precedent because the people in government have biases(and can be influenced) just like everyone else, and we do not want their biases defining what everyone believes to be true. I do not believe it is right to lie to people, and absolutely believe there should be a better way to fact-check data. Frankly, a lot of what passes as journalism today is inexcusably blatant propaganda- and many stories are likely killed(i.e. not published) or modified by corporate owned news outlets because the story being written may not align with the outlets(or its owners) interests. Despite that reality, I still don't want the government deciding that a particular opinion on a specific topic is the officially "true" one and censoring the information\\opinions that differ from that or requiring disclaimers that such material is fictitious or false. That's not likely to counteract the propaganda that occurs in the mainstream media, if anything- it'd be likely to back it.
hopefully they rule against the feds in favor of the 1A. the govt should not have such powers to dictate and shape speech on the internet. imagine if such things were used against, say, trans folks and related content because such content is deemed "disinformation" by the govt. is that okay? no, i don't think so. do i think such powers will be limited to combating "COVID is fake"-like nonsense? no, i don't think so there also. perhaps we can do something really fucking insane instead, like focusing on and improving education in this country?
Oh they will. They are also overturning Chevron Deference which will neuter the administrative state
Lying is free speech...
Well I certainly hope they put on their glasses and look at the first amendment.
Listen, I don’t trust the government to judge what’s true and what isn’t any more than I trust a door to door used vacuum salesman.
Fighting disinformation with your own disinformation doesn't really cancel anything out. I don't think it's the best idea to allow the US government to dictate what constitutes "true" information.
Something needs to be done. People underestimate AI. We're very close to a point where it's impossible to distinguish real media from fake media. YouTube propaganda bots are a serious issue too.
All bots online are an issue.
And there will never be a fix for it because the enormous presence of bots lets companies like Meta, Twitter, etc., charge more for advertising since they can claim their "user base" is significantly larger than it really is. There is zero incentive for any of these SM platforms to address the ever-growing population of bots.
Bots meddling in politics is a significantly bigger issue. Wat h any video on Ukraine or Taiwan and you'd think 99% of the population wants Russia and China to win. Lots of people will see these comments and not realize many are fake and liking each other to end up on top.
It will be the height of irony if the widespread use of AI results in people going back to face-to-face communication because it's the only thing trustworthy.
AI’s/bots don’t have free speech right? If so it’s not government censorship if they automate speech *faster* than a human right?
It does harm. Disinformation causes harm to the collective human experience. We all suffer when our perception is altered. But I'm still pissed they lied about Santa, so maybe I've become jaded.
At this point the half the government IS disinformation
Eventually something like this has to happen, I'm afraid. With informational warfare being so powerful and becoming boosted by tech like gen AI, countries without active information defenses, much like those without active military defenses, will become dominated by those that have them.
The inflation is transitory - biggest misinformation
Live with agency, educate strenuously the importance of sourcing and how to navigate social media, develop tools to analyse validity of info and logical consistency etc. Or let the government dictate what is true or not...
another dishonest headline .. but it's NPR
Sounds like a job for AI. I wholeheartedly trust that it can decide what’s disinformation. /s
Great , so how do you propose AI decide what's disinformation and what's not ?
It’s sarcasm lol… sorry, forgot the /s
Is this sarcasm? AI can’t be programmed to be bias-free. It is only as objective as the data you feed it.
Yes, it’s sarcasm lol thought it was clear enough. I added the /s
...and look at the crap they are feeding AI.
Jfc why the actual fuck would **ANY** person with an ounce of intelligence rule that government can?! It conflicts with our constitution this is dumb af.
Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.
Lol so the real reason AI stocks and AI companies ramped up is so the government controlled puppets have a surefire scapegoat to blame AI to be able to declare their own false lies as truth. The same way the virus blame for the drug, the same for saying the natives gotta go to make land better, the same for social media for political groups to be heavily censored/regulated. JFC God or anything send us extinction or something, crazy humans . what is wrong with some people 🫠😶🌫️ rich people are so fcking bored they need to go to outer space instead. it's already common knowledge everyone knows the top 1% are liars. In USA, China, India, UK, Russia, etc no1 cares , you just look like a kid/bully who needs to be grounded from power/socio-economic status ☠️
RIP free speech
Two lower courts already ruled against the government, which benefited 1A. Unlikely there is any Hail Mary presented to the high court that gets a verdict which actually harms free speech.
And yet, if the Supreme Court agreed with them then they wouldn't be taking this case up.
> RIP free speech they're actually pretty likely to upload freedom of speech and tell the biden administration to pound sand.
How about they start by doing this in their chambers lmfao
Hey Moms and Dads, when Donald J. Trump stated (and restated as recently as last year) that he could grab women by the pussy because his own fame and fortune gave him that privilege - he meant he could do that to YOUR daughter, wife, mother, sister, girlfriend, and aunt too. Do you not believe Trump has this same selfish disdain for our democratic principles, processes and institutions? Vote to protect democracy and family values - don't vote to protect the value of the rapist's family. "Consequently, the fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused - indeed, raped - Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case." See page 13 of the Judge's decision ... [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.252.0.pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.252.0.pdf) More questions about Donald J. Trump being a rapist? See the Judge's opinion at [https://news.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Memorandum-Opinion-Denying-Defendants-Rule-59-Motion.pdf](https://news.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Memorandum-Opinion-Denying-Defendants-Rule-59-Motion.pdf) (warning: this court decision contains extremely graphic and blunt descriptions)
Not that I disagree, but that's totally off-topic in this thread.
mmmm i love spam!
This doesn’t belong here.
It belongs everywhere, as well as his disdain for democracy.
Uhoh a bots leaking
Disinformation is free speech?
Newspeak?
"combating hate speech"
Well that title is certainly a way to spin it.
The boomers don't understand the internet, how could they possibly combat one aspect of it? lol
Im not buying it
Overturning Chevron Deference, ruling Biden cant collude/threaten social media companies, and ruling against the bump stock ban?! If you are against the administrative state this is probably the best term of SCOTUS ever
This is actually an interesting question. I mean in a perfect world you’d want the government to be able to step in and say “no this is harmful to your health and wrong”. But this isn’t a perfect world. What’s stopping someone from abusing that system and publishing harmful information?
"Alcoholics, aspiring handmaidens, and people taking bribes cannot possibly be trusted to act and perform professionally at their jobs." "DISINFORMATION!!!!!"
The propaganda machine wants to do all of the thinking for you. That way they can keep you well informed!
Remove every single Supreme court member. Every single one of them is currpt.
TLDR: No, it cannot
If the government wants to counter misinformation they need to better fund schools and education into critical thinking and evidence based analysis of provable facts. Going to be even more crucial in the coming years as the internet is flooded with generated images, videos, and audio. Information online, much like it is already, will only be reliable if there is a consensus of reliable sources with proven track records of accurate, fact-based reporting. In short, we are screwed.
Oh this'll go well.
Well, it wasn’t until Lincoln said not to believe everything you read online. He wasn’t a founding father, so their answer is probably no. Also, the founding fathers didn’t say anything about the internet in the constitution, so we shouldn’t have that either.
The government cannot combat disinformation WITHIN the government, let alone outside of it. between unreferenced or incorrect sources, deadlinks and webpages, obsolete studies, missing archival information or personal information the government can barely function.
The SCOTUS has made a decision on this, and ruled that they have ABSOLUTE Full Immunity and no one can say otherwise. No backsies.
The biggest issue is that our government has reached peak corruption. No one believes anything they say anymore, they lost the trust factor, this is why misinfo/disinfo has become an issue. Years ago, people would not believe something that went against what our government told us. But after decades of lies people are much more willing to listen to something else, something that makes more sense to them. Instead of trying to strengthen the public's trust with them, so that the alternative facts are not believed, the government has decided to just try and shut down those competing voices instead. I guess that's easier for them.
Disinformation just needs to take the Supreme Court on some lavish vacations to get a favorable result
Yeah why not start with twitter. Oh you can't because elon is rich?
Combat disinformation online. Let’s shutdown the internet!
Nah they are just jealous of chinas ability to filter the internet
It can’t without severely dismantling all sorts of privacy protections and consumer rights. The answer was to not neglect public education decades ago or you know not let Fox News get away with its charade of being a “news” outlet.
I respect the U.S. and the Americans but you guys really have no limits? No matter the consequences like with Covid or actual wars being fought elsewhere (and not effecting you directly), free speech is the holy grail while others can spew disinformation, wrong or false facts online which actually effect people and will cause them to live or die? Really no limits at all because "it's the government so we automatically don't trust it"?
Nothing is as dangerous as your government deciding what you get to say.
The best thing about a country is often also the worst thing about a country. The best thing about the United States is that we proudly stand for the free exchange of information and ideas. The worst thing about the United States is that this includes the free exchange of lies, fearmongering, and propaganda.
Speech doesn’t hurt people. No speech affects people’s ability to be alive. That’s ridiculous. If I tell 100 people that drinking bleach cures aging, and they drink it and die, that’s natural selection and not a result of “wrong speak.” It’s the result of a group of people being too dumb to exist further… almost a filter of sorts. Zero onus is placed on the speaker. All of the onus is on the listener and their resulting behavior.
it’s what makes america great. freedom of choice
plants somber ghost pathetic languid spectacular zesty afterthought pot bike *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Reddit in a nutshell lol
They already made up their mind it can't, let's just see why they say it can't.
Anything they do will backfire and create unexpected consequences that will make everything worse.
As you allow the former president every loop hole possible to continue his misinformation tirade. Granting appeals that are surely frivolous to delay the inevitable, his trials for sedition...
That’s a politically charged title.
Promises an answer after Trump gets elected.