Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disinformation is really causing problems. It’s unclear to me why folks would defend misinformation? I mean it’s one thing if it only affects the consumer of misinformation but J6 proved it can have huge implications for society and nothing good comes from it.

because “disinformation” and “misinformation” are generally protected by the 1st amendment, and in the eyes of the beholder.

But it’s radicalizing white male racists, which put the average Americans at risk. The constitution seems to only protect your speech and gun rights but no one else’s right to live in peace… that common good of tranquility and liberty.

That’s not remotely reflective of actual 1st Amendment jurisprudence. Moreover what I don’t understand is how you can’t see that a government ban on “misinformation” is going to be used against causes you support just as much as those you oppose.

Because I work in cybersecurity and part of my job duties during the 2020 election and pandemic I had daily briefings on foreign misinformation, only to come home often and find former high school classmates retweeting/reposting the same foreign misinformation. I also had a front seat for J6. Our country has huge problems and misinformation is contributing. I’m shocked you would support foreign interference in our information landscape. Clearly, you bought in to the lies and would like to double down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too bad that slightly less far right wing sites haven’t covered this yet, because this is an absolute necessity, especially with the GOP spreading as much dis- and misinformation as they can.

Is it still a good idea of the likes of trump is in office?

Trump was in office when this happened, per the Tweet:





Oops.

Yes. He was in office.
And, so were a lot of career officials at DHS who took it upon themselves to do the censoring. They even censored Trump himself.
And, they were censoring true information and opinions. This evidently happened without the knowledge of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too bad that slightly less far right wing sites haven’t covered this yet, because this is an absolute necessity, especially with the GOP spreading as much dis- and misinformation as they can.

Is it still a good idea of the likes of trump is in office?

Trump was in office when this happened, per the Tweet:





Oops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too bad that slightly less far right wing sites haven’t covered this yet, because this is an absolute necessity, especially with the GOP spreading as much dis- and misinformation as they can.

Is it still a good idea of the likes of trump is in office?

Trump was in office when this happened, per the Tweet:





Oops.

Yes. He was in office.
And, so were a lot of career officials at DHS who took it upon themselves to do the censoring. They even censored Trump himself.
And, they were censoring true information and opinions. This evidently happened without the knowledge of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too bad that slightly less far right wing sites haven’t covered this yet, because this is an absolute necessity, especially with the GOP spreading as much dis- and misinformation as they can.

Is it still a good idea of the likes of trump is in office?

Trump was in office when this happened, per the Tweet:





Oops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disinformation is really causing problems. It’s unclear to me why folks would defend misinformation? I mean it’s one thing if it only affects the consumer of misinformation but J6 proved it can have huge implications for society and nothing good comes from it.

because “disinformation” and “misinformation” are generally protected by the 1st amendment, and in the eyes of the beholder.

But it’s radicalizing white male racists, which put the average Americans at risk. The constitution seems to only protect your speech and gun rights but no one else’s right to live in peace… that common good of tranquility and liberty.

That’s not remotely reflective of actual 1st Amendment jurisprudence. Moreover what I don’t understand is how you can’t see that a government ban on “misinformation” is going to be used against causes you support just as much as those you oppose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too bad that slightly less far right wing sites haven’t covered this yet, because this is an absolute necessity, especially with the GOP spreading as much dis- and misinformation as they can.

Is it still a good idea of the likes of trump is in office?

Anonymous wrote:This is so f-ed up, censoring only one party is outrageous, cant wait to vote these criminals out

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disinformation is really causing problems. It’s unclear to me why folks would defend misinformation? I mean it’s one thing if it only affects the consumer of misinformation but J6 proved it can have huge implications for society and nothing good comes from it.

Simple.

Disinformation is subjective.

If I posted in 2020 that Covid was from a lab in Wuhan, it would be censored. In fact anyone who posted that was ridiculed and rebuked by the MSM as spreading lies.


However, 3 years later, the current theory accepted by the government, public, media, Fauci that is was from the lab indeed.

So yo I have to be careful what you censor as false info as it actually may be correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disinformation is really causing problems. It’s unclear to me why folks would defend misinformation? I mean it’s one thing if it only affects the consumer of misinformation but J6 proved it can have huge implications for society and nothing good comes from it.

because “disinformation” and “misinformation” are generally protected by the 1st amendment, and in the eyes of the beholder.

But it’s radicalizing white male racists, which put the average Americans at risk. The constitution seems to only protect your speech and gun rights but no one else’s right to live in peace… that common good of tranquility and liberty.