Helene & Milton - Political fallout, Disinformation and Lies & now Threats

[UNCatTech]

Just like it called for cuts to SS each year, but he lies and says he supports both.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

Biden just now in response to media questions about disinformation generally and Trump specifically-

“Mr. President Trump, former President Trump, get a life man, help these people”

 

[SnoopRob]

Maybe they should be shut down then.

That still does nothing regarding TV, radio, websites, email chains, etc.

You're not going to be able to solve this by shutting down certain media, there's just no practical solution there.

 

[Paine]

That still does nothing regarding TV, radio, websites, email chains, etc.

You're not going to be able to solve this by shutting down certain media, there's just no practical solution there.

Depends on what you think is practical I guess. Listened to an interview with a mass tort lawyer today about the litigation involving social media algorithms. These sites can’t claim they have no responsibility for the content on their site while actively curating an algorithm that promotes dangerous content that has directly led to kids dying.

 

[SnoopRob]

Depends on what you think is practical I guess. Listened to an interview with a mass tort lawyer today about the litigation involving social media algorithms. These sites can’t claim they have no responsibility for the content on their site while actively curating an algorithm that promotes dangerous content that has directly led to kids dying.

I'm guessing that lawyers are a long way from proving that not only did the social media companies "promote" content that led to kids dying, but did so with knowledge that doing so would lead to kids dying either had the intent or extreme indifference to said outcome.

If you think it's practical to roll back misinformation and disinformation on social media, tv, radio, internet & email and more...describe how you would do so in a way that doesn't violate the first amendment.

 

[Paine]

I'm guessing that lawyers are a long way from proving that not only did the social media companies "promote" content that led to kids dying, but did so with knowledge that doing so would lead to kids dying either had the intent or extreme indifference to said outcome.

If you think it's practical to roll back misinformation and disinformation on social media, tv, radio, internet & email and more...describe how you would do so in a way that doesn't violate the first amendment.

I don’t know, I’m not an expert or a lawyer. I just think sitting back and saying there is no practical solution to such a serious issue is stupid.

40 states have sued Meta due to the addictive nature of their product towards children. This is no different than the tobacco or opioid industry.

If the companies can’t figure out a way to have their product without promoting dangerous misinformation, then we can do without social media.

Might be a good topic for another thread if anyone has some articles/papers they’ve read on the subject.

 

[SnoopRob]

I don’t know, I’m not an expert or a lawyer. I just think sitting back and saying there is no practical solution to such a serious issue is stupid.

40 states have sued Meta due to the addictive nature of their product towards children. This is no different than the tobacco or opioid industry.

If the companies can’t figure out a way to have their product without promoting dangerous misinformation, then we can do without social media.

Might be a good topic for another thread if anyone has some articles/papers they’ve read on the subject.

I'm not a lawyer, either, but I know that if lawsuits around mis/disinformation were easy to win, then FoxNews and Newsmax and most of the rest of the right-wing media ecosystem would have been sued into oblivion already. The fact that they're still out there shows such efforts are hard to pull off.

I'll be amazed if anything significant comes of the lawsuits against Meta. Most likely they reach a settlement where Meta "strengthens" the age-restriction procedures in a way that are still easily avoidable and, perhaps, pays a small fine.

I don't disgree that mis/disinformation is a major problem on social media, more that there's little way to solve it that would be (a) legal and (b) effective short of essentially shutting it all down (which I don't think the government has the ability to do) because the problem isn't actually the companies...it's the users.

 

[rodoheel]

I don’t know, I’m not an expert or a lawyer. I just think sitting back and saying there is no practical solution to such a serious issue is stupid.

40 states have sued Meta due to the addictive nature of their product towards children. This is no different than the tobacco or opioid industry.

If the companies can’t figure out a way to have their product without promoting dangerous misinformation, then we can do without social media.

Might be a good topic for another thread if anyone has some articles/papers they’ve read on the subject.

I don't think the message Snoop intended to send was that we should give up on a solution. I think what he's expressing is just that, unfortunately, the current legal framework (including the Constitution and about 25-30 years of legal precedents addressing responsibility/liability for statements made online) makes it very difficult to craft a legal solution for spreading misinformation on social media that won't immediately run afoul of the legal guardrails.

I do think classifying certain regulations of social media as safety-related (especially related to children's' safety) is ultimately the best chance we have. Those regulations, though, will still have to be narrow enough that they can survive strict scrutiny from a Supreme Court with a decided conservative tilt. (I'm not intending to re-litigate any of our prior arguments, but this is one example of why I think leftists who - unlike you - take the attitude of "make Democrats lose so they'll listen to us next time" are so frustratingly myopic in their thinking; they're either not comprehending, or foolishly disregarding, that electing a Republican president who locks in a conservative Supreme Court for decades can do more to derail the possibility of progressive legislation than just about anything else.) It's a really challenging problem to solve.

 

[Paine]

I think one thing we can all agree on is that improvements to the education system could be an area where we could reduce people falling for disinformation/misinformation.

Would be much easier to include courses on source selection, bias training, etc. than it would be to get changes that would have to pass SCOTUS’ muster.

Hell, universal college would probably help at least a bit with this issue.

Like Snoop said, it is a supply and demand problem. There are a certain number of people who drive demand for this misinfo, and there always has been.

 

[SnoopRob]

I think one thing we can all agree on is that improvements to the education system could be an area where we could reduce people falling for disinformation/misinformation.

Would be much easier to include courses on source selection, bias training, etc. than it would be to get changes that would have to pass SCOTUS’ muster.

Hell, universal college would probably help at least a bit with this issue.

Which is why Republicans oppose quality public education on every level.

They're reliant on a dumb electorate to have a chance to win in anything like their current incarnation.

 

[Paine]

Which is why Republicans oppose quality public education on every level.

They're reliant on a dumb electorate to have a chance to win in anything like their current incarnation.

Right. I guess just in terms of a more practical solution though, education might be a good place to start. It will take an “all of the above” method to solve this issue, including some new ideas that may be considered impractical now.

 

[finesse]

Right. I guess just in terms of a more practical solution though, education might be a good place to start. It will take an “all of the above” method to solve this issue, including some new ideas that may be considered impractical now.

We need to take philosophical/religious restrictions off education and laws for a start. Countenancing state supported superstitions is, at best, ignorant and guaranteed to be an impediment to an open mind.

 

[superrific]

I think one thing we can all agree on is that improvements to the education system could be an area where we could reduce people falling for disinformation/misinformation.

1. Plenty of people who attend college fall for disinformation/misinformation.
2. Old people are especially prone to disinformation because of the way human brains work when they age. No amount of education is going to prevent that.
3. I'm skeptical that college itself makes all that much difference. It's college + the right attitude toward knowledge. There's this idea out there that the principal barrier to college is affordability. I mean, that's definitely true in some cases -- but it's also true that some people have no interest in college and wouldn't benefit from it.

My son-in-law isn't going to college. His mom is a psychiatrist and his dad has an MS in epidemiology. He just sucks at school. He's autistic so not necessarily the average case, but the problem for him isn't affordability and it's not intelligence. It's that he hates school and fares poorly there. He's training to be an auto mechanic. Fortunately, he has leaned into church recently, and church is UCC, so that's good. Both of his parents are liberal, as is his stepbrother (who he looks up to so much), and to the extent it matters, stepdad obviously. So he's not on track to go MAGA at all. But he could in a different environment.

In other words, I'm kind of with you on fighting disinformation at its source, but I also recognize that it's not really possible in today's legal milieu. I've long thought that the First Am was going to contribute to our downfall. Free speech is great, but the model of a "marketplace of ideas" is not the right way to think about it. It never was, but especially isn't now. Unfortunately, that's the model that two generations of lawyers trained on, and for some reason, it's held in very high regard within the legal profession and the professoriate. Maybe that's because lawyers like to fancy themselves as sophisticated consumers in that marketplace, which is probably false but in any event sort of irrelevant unless and until lawyers make up 20% of the population or more. And that might be a fate worse than Trump. OK, that's not true, but it's not desirable.

Short answer: changing the marketplace of ideas concept will take a long time, best case scenario, and until that is changed, the laws for fighting disinformation will never be nearly strong enough. It will always be the UNC offensive line trying to block Bosa, Watt, Donald and Myles Garrett.

 

[SnoopRob]

I've long thought that the First Am was going to contribute to our downfall. Free speech is great, but the model of a "marketplace of ideas" is not the right way to think about it. It never was, but especially isn't now.

I'm curious what model you would think better to replace the "marketplace of ideas" model concerning speech.

My feelings about the marketplace model is roughly the same as the platitude about democracy..."It is the worst form of government except for all of the others."

 

[Paine]

Yeah that’s a good point super. I wonder if there are other areas we could identify to include this type of course work (?). High school is an obvious example, but trade schools could also be a great place to add some sort of coursework related to it.

I also wonder if some kind of national service could help with this specific kind of corrosive disinformation about other Americans/other places in America. Very loose idea, but a climate corps is something that has intrigued me. I did trail work with AmeriCorps after college and think everyone should have to do something like that after HS.

Let people sign up for service opportunities in an area of the country they’ve never been to, rural, urban, whatever.

The theory behind this being that we need to create/recreate institutions that encourage belief in democracy and shared ideals among Americans.

Truth is, a lot of Americans don’t trust traditional institutions due legitimate failures by these institutions. The trust has to be deliberately rebuilt. Hard when one political party is hellbent on refusing to do so and actively continuing the erosion of trust.

 

[superrific]

Yeah that’s a good point super. I wonder if there are other areas we could identify to include this type of course work (?). High school is an obvious example, but trade schools could also be a great place to add some sort of coursework related to it.

I also wonder if some kind of national service could help with this specific kind of corrosive disinformation about other Americans/other places in America. Very loose idea, but a climate corps is something that has intrigued me. I did trail work with AmeriCorps after college and think everyone should have to do something like that after HS.

Let people sign up for service opportunities in an area of the country they’ve never been to, rural, urban, whatever.

The theory behind this being that we need to create/recreate institutions that encourage belief in democracy and shared ideals among Americans.

Truth is, a lot of Americans don’t trust traditional institutions due legitimate failures by these institutions. The trust has to be deliberately rebuilt. Hard when one political party is hellbent on refusing to do so and actively continuing the erosion of trust.

1. But the ones who are most toxically distrustful of those institutions have not suffered because of those failures. They have just been listening to BS their whole lives.

2. I agree that national service would probably help with this problem, and it might be the best proposed solution floated on this thread (or other threads for that matter). As you know, of course, it's not realistic in any foreseeable future. I always get annoyed when people dismiss ideas that are politically unrealistic, when in fact the way to make it politically realistic is to at least give it some airplay. So my comment here is consistent with that. It's worth discussing so long as we're not expecting it to solve problems in the near term.

3. It's also possible that we will never make headway on this issue so long as outrage sells better than truth. And if that's something inherent in our psychology (as humans, or as Americans, or as late capitalism Americans, or whatever the cause), we might be fucked.

 

[superrific]

I'm curious what model you would think better to replace the "marketplace of ideas" model concerning speech.

My feelings about the marketplace model is roughly the same as the platitude about democracy..."It is the worst form of government except for all of the others."

The biggest problem with the marketplace of ideas is the assumption that the "best product" will win out in the end. That's not even true of actual marketplaces, let alone metaphorical ones. So the cheery optimism of "let people express their ideas and the truth will win in the end" is actually no more than mere enthusiasm, to quote from a Russell Crowe character.

Somehow the rest of the world manages to function without buying into the marketplace of ideas. Here's a statement of European law, which includes some exceptions to free speech that we recognize (nat sec, defamation) but many that we don't.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The key concept there is "duties and responsibilities." The American version of free speech, by contrast, is the juvenile idea that communication is only about freedom, only about "I can say what I want to say 'cause it's a free country." That's the idea specifically and intentionally promoted by the marketplace model, which after all was basically an import of 19th century laissez-faire ideas into the realm of speech.

In real marketplaces, there are all sorts of regulations. For instance, dishonest speech can be prosecuted as fraud if used to gain financial advantage. But used to gain political office? Marketplace. In a marketplace, everyone is making noise but the marketplaces don't let people stand up with bullhorns and drown all the other vendors out. But in political speech? Marketplace.

We could start with a few simple rules. I'll offer two. I haven't thought deeply about this issue in a while and I don't have a lot of time now so the ideas are going to be rough and will not be perfect, but they give a flavor.

1. Saying something that is knowingly false should carry consequences. Knowledge of falseness can be proven by a track record of being corrected.

We wouldn't want to stifle people from questioning the conventional wisdom, so it should be OK to express "controversial" opinions. It should just be mandatory to point out the disagreement. If Trump wants to claim that windmills cause cancer, fine. But he should have to express it as, "I think windmills cause cancer. Most scientists disagree, and I have no evidence of it, but that's my opinion."

2. Same with conspiracy-mongering. If you say "they are doing this," and you can't specify who "they" is, then maybe you shouldn't be saying that shit. That's also a lot of the Trump problem. "They want to take your cars away." "They let so many migrants into the country," etc. Well, who is "they"? If you can't answer with specificity, it shouldn't be said. The "they" doesn't even need to be accurate. It just needs to be there. Otherwise, your statement stands only if true. Same with nonsense like "so many towns in the Midwest are being run over by violent gangs." Which towns, or it's a lie and not protected.

And yes, I appreciate the epistemic issue. Who gets to say what's true or false? Is the government the arbiter of truth? And my answer is that this is only a hard question on the margins. So maybe we need a higher standard to make sure we can at least hit the worst. Maybe the false claim has to be obviously without merit, or there has to be clear and conclusive evidence of its falseness. There are ways to do it. None of them are perfect, but again we face the problem of perfect versus good. Our present system of free speech is highly imperfect. An imperfect set of rules to prevent lies is better than no rules.

 

[uncsig]

I mean, they haven't even thrown out rolls of paper towels. The horror.

 

[UNCatTech]

I was listening to a podcast today about the lies during the disaster.

They gave several examples of stupid maga supporters lying about what was going on. They also talked about how at one point Twitter was actually a good tool during natural disasters, but not since musk purchased it. He basically removed the tools in place that made it work well for disasters and replaced them with maga hatred and conspiracy nuts.

What kind of inhuman fucking weird cult is maga? I knew they were bad, but lying and hurting people in need during a natural disaster. That is a new low.

The whole cult, every cult member, and their orange turd leader are all worthless pieces of shit.