Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[oldbadger]

Your King is the last resort to your freedom, but what if your King becomes the tyranny or the tyranny is able to overcome the power of the King, then what is left for you?

We get rid of kings that do not do their duty. Our Parliament pressed King Edward V111 to abdicate in 1937. The system has worked, so far.

The patriots (traitors from your POV) envisioned this possibility in the government that they established, by including the 2nd amendment.

My POV? Some of my ancestors became your patriots.

I will reply to all your post when next on my computer. I'm on a mobile.

[oldbadger]

Your King is the last resort to your freedom, but what if your King becomes the tyranny or the tyranny is able to overcome the power of the King, then what is left for you?

Hi.... this is a more complete answer to your whole post.
Our Monarchs cannot stand alone. Kind Edward VIII was not allowed to marry his choice of woman and remain King....... he had to abdicate if he wanted to marry her. Fortunately we later discovered that he had some kind of agreement with Hitler thart he would be re-installed if Hitler should invade the UK. But Monarchs can get rid of bad undemocratic governments. It works for us.

They wrote in the Federalist paper # 46 about the purpose of the militia, that was not under the control of the government, being easily able to counter the government troops, but this is now illegal and will invite persecution from the government and being called an illegal insurrection.

You quoted 'Federalist No. 46 published on January 29, 1788"..................To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

A democratically elected government should be supported by all, including those with different ideas. But if some of your countrymen dream about killing their own serving soldiers carrying the nation's flag then that seems rather dodgy to me. Civil wars are nasty, as both we and you know.

If patriots, like you alluded to, can no longer speak freely in the pubic square then they will be forced into the insurrection that our founding fathers envisioned in writing the 2nd amendment. That is why the 1st amendment is so important.

She didn't speak freely in a public square, she even showed pictures of some campaign bus and looked forward to entering government places.....by force as it turned out. We have public spaces where anybody can speak out about anything, including anything that you have mentioned, from doctors disagreeing with medical boards to politicians to enraged voters etc....but we don't support violent folks.

The people of any nation are free, if and only if the ultimate veto power resides in the people and not some King or Parliament. The peoples of all free nations need to organize, so that they will be able to resist the tyranny when it becomes necessary, nobody is going to do that for them.

The people of Germany raised up their chancellor in to a permanent position.... they then united behind him, and look where that got everybody.

Why don't you just vote for your choice of leadership? And stand by the results?

[Purple Knight]

The people of any nation are free, if and only if the ultimate veto power resides in the people and not some King or Parliament. The peoples of all free nations need to organize, so that they will be able to resist the tyranny when it becomes necessary, nobody is going to do that for them.

The people of Germany raised up their chancellor in to a permanent position.... they then united behind him, and look where that got everybody.

I'd like to interject that this chancellor himself is someone who, like Daedalus, insisted that when government power becomes destructive of the People, that the People have not only the right, but the duty, to remove them. And then he tried that against what arguably was a very corrupt government and had it not work, and then went to jail. To get power, he had to move within the system, and he was very lucky the system let him after he tried to instigate a rebellion and murder a bunch of the government while they were drunk.

This seems to be around the point in history when bloody rebellions stop working. Governments are too physically powerful, with too much infrastructure. Even if the People are very upset, even if they have guns, a corrupt government does not go away just because you shoot at it.

Does a militia really solve this? What stops the federal government from just buying them off when they catch a whiff of mobilisation?

[oldbadger]

I'd like to interject that this chancellor himself is someone who, like Daedalus, insisted that when government power becomes destructive of the People, that the People have not only the right, but the duty, to remove them. And then he tried that against what arguably was a very corrupt government and had it not work, and then went to jail. To get power, he had to move within the system, and he was very lucky the system let him after he tried to instigate a rebellion and murder a bunch of the government while they were drunk.

This seems to be around the point in history when bloody rebellions stop working. Governments are too physically powerful, with too much infrastructure. Even if the People are very upset, even if they have guns, a corrupt government does not go away just because you shoot at it.

Does a militia really solve this? What stops the federal government from just buying them off when they catch a whiff of mobilisation?

If a democratic system works then a voting system can be good, but only if the voters are interested in the country rather than just themselves.
A good system should be cherished because there are so many bad ones.

I do believe in freedom of speech which is what @Daedalus calls for, but in some times of great trouble a government needs to keep the people together and then censoring of media is essential. In the UK our newspapers were all heavily censored for five years, just before I was born, and most people understood the need for this. People who tried to disrupt the national 'mind' were classed as dangerous, 'fifth columnists' etc.

Even today our press is censored and some stories cannot be published for a half or even a full century.... one example was featured in a film I watched last night about a bank robbery which unearthed very dangerous information.

[Daedalus X]

A democratically elected government should be supported by all, including those with different ideas. But if some of your countrymen dream about killing their own serving soldiers carrying the nation's flag then that seems rather dodgy to me. Civil wars are nasty, as both we and you know.
...
Why don't you just vote for your choice of leadership? And stand by the results?

Yes, civil wars are nasty, but slavery is far nastier. That is why we need to be willing to fight for our freedom.

Would you stand by the results if you knew the election were stolen?

In the close 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy, if 0.1% voters had gone for Nixon rather than Kennedy, Nixon would have won. Yet, the people watching the election could have gone to bed before midnight knowing who won. The New York Times called the election for then-Senator Kennedy just before midnight on November 8, 1960.

In 1960 the ballots had to be individually counted by humans, but that took too long, so machines were introduced to speed up the process. Yet Biden just warned us to not expect to know, who the winners of the next elections will be, for many days after the election, the people will need to be patient while the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics works it out for us.



A democracy is good, but it is also the easiest system to hijack. The founding fathers assumed that a free press would keep politics honest, and it did for the most part until Oscar Callaway, a US Representative from Texas exposed the truth.

In March, 1915, the J. P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship-building, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. [. . .] They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

That is why we live in a world of "fake news", the news services will only tell us what the people in charge of running the country want us to know. They will place their own candidates into the political races they want to control and most importantly their candidates will represent both sides. Then they will have fake arguments about baby killing vs women's choice to distract from the fact that both candidates are bought and paid for.

[Purple Knight]

If a democratic system works then a voting system can be good, but only if the voters are interested in the country rather than just themselves.
A good system should be cherished because there are so many bad ones.

The problem with this is the selective pressure a good system creates in favour of selfish actors. The better the system, the more selfish voters who simply vote their group benefits at the expense of others, can succeed. If the issue is a toss-up, the selfish voters will always win because they always vote for their best benefit, while always getting 50% of the group that will be harmed because that group is only thinking of the greater good.

...And the only difference between a representative system and a true democracy is that in a representative system, a minority with a lot of influence can screw over a majority with less influence.

Selfish people do excellently when surrounded by the selfless voters you describe. They do much worse when everyone around them is also selfish. But then, the country does worse.

I do believe in freedom of speech which is what @Daedalus calls for, but in some times of great trouble a government needs to keep the people together and then censoring of media is essential. In the UK our newspapers were all heavily censored for five years, just before I was born, and most people understood the need for this. People who tried to disrupt the national 'mind' were classed as dangerous, 'fifth columnists' etc.

Even today our press is censored and some stories cannot be published for a half or even a full century.... one example was featured in a film I watched last night about a bank robbery which unearthed very dangerous information.

The countries that let their detractors tear them to pieces are fated to fall. And those detractors, when they have power, will also control the flow of information in their favour, if they can.

But for some reason, censorship is only a violation of rights when the government does it. I don't agree with it and I wish I could extend this disagreement to a political opinion but everyone seems to agree to the same basic rights while I am in the extreme minority.

[oldbadger]

Yes, civil wars are nasty, but slavery is far nastier. That is why we need to be willing to fight for our freedom.

Fighting for freedom? So many right wing Christians have a New Testament that supports slavery.

Would you stand by the results if you knew the election were stolen?

I should be ashamed that my country can't introduce an accurate voting system, are you telling me that your voting system is third-world quality?

In the close 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy, if 0.1% voters had gone for Nixon rather than Kennedy, Nixon would have won. Yet, the people watching the election could have gone to bed before midnight knowing who won. The New York Times called the election for then-Senator Kennedy just before midnight on November 8, 1960.

Think of that....half your country voted for Nixon. Oh dear.

In 1960 the ballots had to be individually counted by humans, but that took too long, so machines were introduced to speed up the process. Yet Biden just warned us to not expect to know, who the winners of the next elections will be, for many days after the election, the people will need to be patient while the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics works it out for us.

If the election system is dysfunctional then it might be an idea to hold no-more elections until you've built some thing that is competent. Surely?

A democracy is good, but it is also the easiest system to hijack. The founding fathers assumed that a free press would keep politics honest, and it did for the most part until Oscar Callaway, a US Representative from Texas exposed the truth.

Would you like the press to be watched over and policed?
If so then why have you been moaning about private media companies policing their websites?

That is why we live in a world of "fake news", the news services will only tell us what the people in charge of running the country want us to know. They will place their own candidates into the political races they want to control and most importantly their candidates will represent both sides. Then they will have fake arguments about baby killing vs women's choice to distract from the fact that both candidates are bought and paid for.

Well then your people need to build a better election system, but if they think that going out on to the streets with their assault rifles and killing your country's service men and women and police, and terrifying the people at large, then a rather large majority of the population will surely be against you.??

[oldbadger]

The problem with this is the selective pressure a good system creates in favour of selfish actors. The better the system, the more selfish voters who simply vote their group benefits at the expense of others, can succeed. If the issue is a toss-up, the selfish voters will always win because they always vote for their best benefit, while always getting 50% of the group that will be harmed because that group is only thinking of the greater good.

...And the only difference between a representative system and a true democracy is that in a representative system, a minority with a lot of influence can screw over a majority with less influence.

Selfish people do excellently when surrounded by the selfless voters you describe. They do much worse when everyone around them is also selfish. But then, the country does worse.

Ah! Yes! A perfect example of what you are writing about happened in the UK a month ago.........but our system protected us from most of the consequences.

A shocking loop hole in our system allowed our government to drop its leader with his policies, and replaced it with a (selfish) leader with totally different and very dangerous ideas. This leader was installed by a majority of supporting and selfish representatives and the and country's opposition and voters had no say at all.
Overnight our money, our commerce, interest rates.....went in to free fall as the world reacted. Our government has no control over the governor of our national bank and he immediately acted to slow the troubles, and although many mock our monarchy our king did something which went out to the whole country and beyond..... As he met with the new Leader in Public he shook her hand and said 'Dear Oh Dear!'
She was the shortest serving Prime Minister of the UK ever, apart from a PM who died shortly after gaining premiership.

Now that this has happened, I'll bet that it will never be possible for it to happen again........ that'll be written up in no time!

The countries that let their detractors tear them to pieces are fated to fall. And those detractors, when they have power, will also control the flow of information in their favour, if they can.

True. So the Press must be free. The media must be free. The election system must be functional and safe from attack.
........... apart from times of national crisis like those back in the war. Hard times need hard rules.

But for some reason, censorship is only a violation of rights when the government does it. I don't agree with it and I wish I could extend this disagreement to a political opinion but everyone seems to agree to the same basic rights while I am in the extreme minority.

If you built up a media company, a vast chat-room with a news service as well, surely you would want to control or moderate what happens on that site?
I would definitely want to! In a recent situation in UK there was a stampede of anger over a young girl who learned how to commit suicide in different ways, and I read that she was even encouraged by videos and posts. Nearly everybody supports the idea of shutting down media functions like that, and where there's enough evidence that crimes have been committed to prosecute offenders.

Our governments do need to moderate in extreme conditions, but otherwise........ free press?

[Daedalus X]

Fighting for freedom? So many right wing Christians have a New Testament that supports slavery.

I think that it was the Old Testament that said freedom for me but not for thee. The new was more like do unto others and so on.

I should be ashamed that my country can't introduce an accurate voting system, are you telling me that your voting system is third-world quality?

I wish the US had a third world voting system, it is much harder to cheat. Here we have voting machines that run on proprietary software that nobody is allowed to inspect. In my first computer course in High School we learned how to write a program that does simple counting, it is not complicated. But hiding fraud can be very complicated, you need all sorts of obfuscations plus a program that can self delete after the election or if it senses that someone is about to inspect it etc.

Think of that....half your country voted for Nixon. Oh dear.

My father and his friends voted for Nixon, it was a law and order thing.

If the election system is dysfunctional then it might be an idea to hold no-more elections until you've built some thing that is competent. Surely?

That was my advice to Trump, suspend all elections till the covid emergency order is lifted (for the common good). I personally don't believe in voting, at least 90% of the voters have no clue about any issue, they make up their minds based on 60 second advertisements. It is like asking for a train wreck. I don't think that there will ever be a good way to govern the population, especially given a society where half the people want the the government to solve all their problems and the other half wants the government to just get out of the way.

Would you like the press to be watched over and policed?
If so then why have you been moaning about private media companies policing their websites?

I don't want the private media companies policing their websites, just the opposite, let people speak. And let the press report the news, and don't suppress people that they disagree with. Put it all out there and let the people decide who is the telling the truth and who is deceiving the public.

Well then your people need to build a better election system, but if they think that going out on to the streets with their assault rifles and killing your country's service men and women and police, and terrifying the people at large, then a rather large majority of the population will surely be against you.??

If you were Biden, and you got a phone call from Putin saying that some of his military had gone rogue, wanting to destroy the world, and will soon be launching nuclear weapons at all the major cities in the US. And you have about 20 to 60 minutes before this happens, would you launch a counterstrike at Russia and kill millions of innocent people? I think that Biden's hands are tied, he would have to launch the missiles, that is why we have them.

It is the same with our guns, all the gun owners hope that they will never be used against our own government, but if the government goes rogue, then our hands are tied, we would have to remove the despots from power. I think that we have already gone to that point. If we were to hang every politician, that violated the Nuremberg code, by the neck (after a fair trial) we would run out of lamposts to hang them from. Some may object saying that the Nuremberg code was only for German war criminals. But I say it still applies to our covid war criminals as well.

We are at war, and if they declare another pandemic then we need to force these people out of power immediately, this covid pandemic was a deliberate act of war against all the peoples of the world and we need to act before it becomes too late to do anything. We know that they are guilty because they are hiding the data and covering up as much evidence as they can, and our news organizations are only gaslighting the masses.

[Purple Knight]

If you built up a media company, a vast chat-room with a news service as well, surely you would want to control or moderate what happens on that site?

I wouldn't. I would prefer a world where there are restrictions I can do with my own things for the sake of fairness. I honestly, truly, want a fair world, though I recognise that I am in the extreme minority. Just like if I was Alexander the Great and built up a country I wouldn't want to oppress people either. Rather, I wouldn't want to be permitted to.

I do get the feeling that no rule a corrupt government would make would be for the sake of fairness though. Your story demonstrates that governments are easily corruptible. So for better or worse, it's "Mine mine mine!" all the way. That, or rebel.