Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Yadryonych]

I mean...the past decade or so has been a fantastic example of the bolded because like...yeah, a disturbingly large number of people are very much the target audience for warning labels on bottles of bleach and instructions on boxes for bars of soap.

I wouldn't even ask you for what the proposed counter-measures would be, I just cant help but be amazed at you people doing incredible mental gymnastics to tell you would prefer authoritarianism without telling so

[Orange Joe]

Never said that. You said lying isn’t illegal. My counter is libel/slander. Thanks for playing. Care to move on to the rest of what’s at issue?

So was my statement(lie) "Vegas82 smells like poo to me." illegal?




go ahead mods infract me again. You wouldn't know trolling if it was right in your face.

[Edge-]

I wouldn't even ask you for what the proposed counter-measures would be, I just cant help but be amazed at you people doing incredible mental gymnastics to tell you would prefer autocracy without telling so

I mean, when you appear to know what my "proposed counter-measures" would be before I even make a post about it, why not just straight up tell me?

You're clearly inside my head, so have at it, bro.

[Orange Joe]

No, see that’s a subjective statement. I get you don’t understand, but you keep fixating on one tiny detail… while being wrong about it. So have fun smelling poop.

Ah so the lie wasn't illegal? Gotcha. Can't be subjective as I have never smelled you so I would have no idea what you really smell like. It's a straight up not illegal lie

[Shadowferal]

People should be nannied around by Big Brother because they are clearly incapable of acting rationally on their own.

The more the gop, rightwing, and libertarians such misinformation kills off, big bro may actually finally exist beyond the fevered imagination of Russian apologists.

[Endus]

And... we've seen what happens when totalitarian and authoritarian regimes take control of things like social media. And... I fucking enjoy the First Amendment.

And I fucking enjoy people being free to speak their minds, and having access to information... and not just the information the government deems appropriate.

I'm not asking the wrong question, because he literally called to nationalize all companies (I assume all social media). This isn't even a hypothetical, because it's literally his argument. The "good guys" aren't always going to be in charge.

This is giving more power and authority to those ethno-natioalists.

And... why do you want to give them more power?

The Machismo Tactic, in a nutshell.

Move goalposts; instead of defending your position on nationalizing companies, make vague comments about authoritarian regimes, even when that has nothing to do with nationalizing social media.

Pretend it's about people's freedoms, when you very much pick which freedoms you deem important (here, in particular, you support the freedom of people to lie and misinform for personal/political gain, rather than the right to honest reporting of the facts).

Project your own foibles onto the opponent; claiming that nationalizing social media would give power to ethno-nationalists when it's the status quo that is, obviously and objectively, doing so, and nationalizing it would take that away.

Nesting-doll, recursive dishonesty.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah so the lie wasn't illegal? Gotcha. Can't be subjective as I have never smelled you so I would have no idea what you really smell like. It's a straight up not illegal lie

The key point is that you added "to me", which makes it a subjective statement about personal opinion, and any libel/slander case would have to make an argument that you somehow don't perceive that odor, and there's no way they can get evidence of that unless you're dumb enough to straight-up admit to lying.

If you had said "So-and-so smells like poo", that could be actionable, because you've removed that "to me" bit. Now you've made a claim of objective fact, not a subjective claim. That changes things.

[Fugus]

The Machismo Tactic, in a nutshell.

Move goalposts; instead of defending your position on nationalizing companies, make vague comments about authoritarian regimes, even when that has nothing to do with nationalizing social media.

Pretend it's about people's freedoms, when you very much pick which freedoms you deem important (here, in particular, you support the freedom of people to lie and misinform for personal/political gain, rather than the right to honest reporting of the facts).

Project your own foibles onto the opponent; claiming that nationalizing social media would give power to ethno-nationalists when it's the status quo that is, obviously and objectively, doing so, and nationalizing it would take that away.

Nesting-doll, recursive dishonesty.

Lets not forget when he tried saying that letting the elderly and disabled suffer and die is a small price to pay to keep from forcing those who aren't paying into social security to actually start paying into it.

Or when he tried to say it was worth endangering children to avoid shopping at Walmart otherwise you are endorsing their practices.

Wonder how many pages he will get this time, he got multiple pages on multiple threads before they did anything and all they did was a baby slap on the wrist.

[Machismo]

The Machismo Tactic, in a nutshell.

Move goalposts; instead of defending your position on nationalizing companies, make vague comments about authoritarian regimes, even when that has nothing to do with nationalizing social media.

Pretend it's about people's freedoms, when you very much pick which freedoms you deem important (here, in particular, you support the freedom of people to lie and misinform for personal/political gain, rather than the right to honest reporting of the facts).

Project your own foibles onto the opponent; claiming that nationalizing social media would give power to ethno-nationalists when it's the status quo that is, obviously and objectively, doing so, and nationalizing it would take that away.

Nesting-doll, recursive dishonesty.

- - - Updated - - -



The key point is that you added "to me", which makes it a subjective statement about personal opinion, and any libel/slander case would have to make an argument that you somehow don't perceive that odor, and there's no way they can get evidence of that unless you're dumb enough to straight-up admit to lying.

If you had said "So-and-so smells like poo", that could be actionable, because you've removed that "to me" bit. Now you've made a claim of objective fact, not a subjective claim. That changes things.

I didn't need to move goalposts, I laid it out quite succinctly and directly. I defended it, used examples, and cited exactly why I oppose the government nationalizing social media companies.

I support freedom of speech, I don't much give a damn if you want to oppose me on that. By all means, stake that flag in that hill.

The last time I checked, ethno-nationalists were in power until January of this year. So, not wanting to give them even more power... is a relevant concern. You are choosing to take the side against free speech, and in favor of giving them more power. That may be the dumbest hill I've ever seen you die on.

SO, let's make sure there's no confusion. Do you want the government to nationalize all social media sites, including this one? I'd hate to lump you in with them, I'd rather you do it yourself. If you don't answer, I'll take that as an affirmative.
- - - Updated - - -

Lets not forget when he tried saying that letting the elderly and disabled suffer and die is a small price to pay to keep from forcing those who aren't paying into social security to actually start paying into it.

Or when he tried to say it was worth endangering children to avoid shopping at Walmart otherwise you are endorsing their practices.

Wonder how many pages he will get this time, he got multiple pages on multiple threads before they did anything and all they did was a baby slap on the wrist.

This is simply a lie on your part. According to many, the government should punish you for that. Now, I don't believe it should be, but those who seek to nationalize sites like this... they most certainly do. Do you agree with them, that the government should nationalize all social media sites?

[Orange Joe]

The key point is that you added "to me", which makes it a subjective statement about personal opinion, and any libel/slander case would have to make an argument that you somehow don't perceive that odor, and there's no way they can get evidence of that unless you're dumb enough to straight-up admit to lying.

If you had said "So-and-so smells like poo", that could be actionable, because you've removed that "to me" bit. Now you've made a claim of objective fact, not a subjective claim. That changes things.

Even with the "to me" part it's still a lie. I've never smelled him. Just because I word it in a way to get around libel/slander doesn't change if it is a lie or not.

[Orange Joe]

Nor does it mean that murder is legal just because you killed someone in self defense. Ready to drop the false equivalence?

Wouldn't be murder if it was self defense would it.... lmfao... Do you not know what murder is?

[Endus]

I didn't need to move goalposts, I laid it out quite succinctly and directly. I defended it, used examples, and cited exactly why I oppose the government nationalizing social media companies.

No. You didn't.

You moved the goalposts to authoritarian governments being "bad".

That has nothing to do with the nationalisation of certain companies.

I support freedom of speech, I don't much give a damn if you want to oppose me on that. By all means, stake that flag in that hill.

Nobody's opposing freedom of speech, here. This is you trying to invent a character attack. Another tactic you use repeatedly when challenged, rather than actually defending your claims.

SO, let's make sure there's no confusion. Do you want the government to nationalize all social media sites, including this one? I'd hate to lump you in with them, I'd rather you do it yourself. If you don't answer, I'll take that as an affirmative.

This is deflection, trying to make me answer leading questions. I never actually took a position in either direction.

That I don't support it myself is not relevant, since we weren't discussing my position, we were discussing how meritless your arguments against it were.

Again, recursive dishonesty on display. You refuse to answer simple questions, and dodge every point with chicanery like this.

[Machismo]

No. You didn't.

You moved the goalposts to authoritarian governments being "bad".

That has nothing to do with the nationalisation of certain companies.



Nobody's opposing freedom of speech, here. This is you trying to invent a character attack. Another tactic you use repeatedly when challenged, rather than actually defending your claims.



This is deflection, trying to make me answer leading questions. I never actually took a position in either direction.

That I don't support it myself is not relevant, since we weren't discussing my position, we were discussing how meritless your arguments against it were.

Again, recursive dishonesty on display. You refuse to answer simple questions, and dodge every point with chicanery like this.

You didn't answer the question, so I'll take that as an affirmative. I literally asked you for your position, and you dodged.

Meanwhile, you chimed in to defend a guy calling to nationalize all companies (just to be sure, we'll assume he meant just social media companies). It's not a deflection, because that's literally the conversation you chose to barge into. So, if you don't want to talk about it, then why did you interject in order to change the subject and blame me for what he said?

I pointed out how nationalization, especially when it comes to things regarding the first Amendment... is damn dangerous. Imagine if Trump's administration had nationalized all the social media companies, or all the news stations. If you don't see the risk of abuse, then there's not much I can do for you. Or, if you don't like that hypothetical, look no further than China, who is terrible, and still not even as authoritarian as the other poster wants.

I get that you want to come in like a knight in shining armor, because that other dude was drowning, but really this is just highlighting that you don't like me personally, and think that this is an actual argument.

They are opposing freedom of speech. Shit, it's so bad, they are swearing that this isn't even an issue of free speech, or the First Amendment... when it is blatantly so, and we laid out exactly why it is.

You asked no questions. Now you want to be pissed at me, for not answering a question you never asked. meanwhile, you never answered my question. The irony is pretty damn strong right now. Really, you should probably just slink away at this point, you seem to be projecting a great deal. Hell, at the very best, you are trying to argue a point you don't even believe in, to defend a guy who also doesn't believe in his argument enough to actually know his own argument.

As for my position, I have laid it out quite clearly. meanwhile, the guy who laid the claim in the first place, and never backed it up, is the one you insist on defending. Since you have no desire to go after him, then the only logical conclusion is that you simply don't like me, and want to argue... just to argue. Well, let's have it, go ahead and argue for him. lay down your stance, and actually claim something, instead of simply whining that some other dude got wrecked in a debate.

[Orange Joe]

Just like it isn’t always libel but that doesn’t mean lying is always legal. Should I slow down?

You do you cause I'm not getting into this with you again. You define words how you want to

[Endus]

You didn't answer the question, so I'll take that as an affirmative. I literally asked you for your position, and you dodged.

I literally answered that question, right in the post you quoted.

I don't support it myself

So you're choosing to just directly lie about that.

Meanwhile, you chimed in to defend a guy calling to nationalize all companies (just to be sure, we'll assume he meant just social media companies). It's not a deflection, because that's literally the conversation you chose to barge into. So, if you don't want to talk about it, then why did you interject in order to change the subject and blame me for what he said?

Because your arguments against it were nonsense and dishonest.

I don't have to agree with them to take you to task for shitty, misleading arguments. This isn't a team sport. There aren't any "sides".

I pointed out how nationalization, especially when it comes to things regarding the first Amendment... is damn dangerous. Imagine if Trump's administration had nationalized all the social media companies, or all the news stations. If you don't see the risk of abuse, then there's not much I can do for you. Or, if you don't like that hypothetical, look no further than China, who is terrible, and still not even as authoritarian as the other poster wants.

In the case of an authoritarian regime, this all becomes moot, because said regime will pass whatever new abusive laws it chooses to, by virtue of being authoritarian. Bringing up that possibility is an attempt to deflect.

[Machismo]

I literally answered that question, right in the post you quoted.



So you're choosing to just directly lie about that.



Because your arguments against it were nonsense and dishonest.

I don't have to agree with them to take you to task for shitty, misleading arguments. This isn't a team sport. There aren't any "sides".



In the case of an authoritarian regime, this all becomes moot, because said regime will pass whatever new abusive laws it chooses to, by virtue of being authoritarian. Bringing up that possibility is an attempt to deflect.

Your wording was deliberately vague, which I think was the point. I want no wiggle room, I want to know exactly where you stand, no dancing around the issue.

My argument was fine, simply saying "That's not an argument" isn't an argument of any substance. It's a deflection, a whine. Meanwhile, i stated exactly why it would be bad, and gave real-life examples of why I oppose it. This is literally an attempt to subvert the First Amendment, smoothing the path and removing obstacles for such authoritarian regimes.

"That I don't support it myself is not relevant, since we weren't discussing my position, we were discussing how meritless your arguments against it were."

SO, what exactly is YOUR POSITION?

Feel free to keep defending him, I look forward to it.

[Endus]

Your wording was deliberately vague, which I think was the point. I want no wiggle room, I want to know exactly where you stand, no dancing around the issue.

What on Earth is "vague" about "I don't support it myself"?

My argument was fine, simply saying "That's not an argument" isn't an argument of any substance. It's a deflection, a whine. Meanwhile, i stated exactly why it would be bad, and gave real-life examples of why I oppose it. This is literally an attempt to subvert the First Amendment, smoothing the path and removing obstacles for such authoritarian regimes.

I'm not deflecting anything.

You're refusing to discuss nationalization of companies, which was the subject you came in on. You keep deflecting (as you do here) to complaints about authoritarian regimes (which would have the same power to restrict freedoms, nationalization or no) or to freedom of speech (which wasn't being discussed in the first place, and there's no reason to think a coordinated disinformation campaign would fall under protected speech either).

"That I don't support it myself is not relevant, since we weren't discussing my position, we were discussing how meritless your arguments against it were."

SO, what exactly is YOUR POSITION?

You literally just quoted it. I can't read the text for you. It's right frickin' there.

You're still deflecting, though, because you don't want to spend time discussing nationalization of social media companies for some reason.

Edit: You seem to want me to go on some diatribe about the exact details of what I, personally, believe. So that you can pick that apart. Which would just be another deflection away from the original point, which you continue to refuse to discuss. My personal point of view on this wasn't under discussion, and I don't see how it's relevant in the first place, other than as another attempt to derail.

[Machismo]

What on Earth is "vague" about "I don't support it myself"?



I'm not deflecting anything.

You're refusing to discuss nationalization of companies, which was the subject you came in on. You keep deflecting (as you do here) to complaints about authoritarian regimes (which would have the same power to restrict freedoms, nationalization or no) or to freedom of speech (which wasn't being discussed in the first place, and there's no reason to think a coordinated disinformation campaign would fall under protected speech either).

You literally just quoted it. I can't read the text for you. It's right frickin' there.

You're still deflecting, though, because you don't want to spend time discussing nationalization of social media companies for some reason.

No, you said, "that I don't agree with him..." Nope... another dodge. I want to know exactly what YOU BELIEVE.

I am more than willing to discuss nationalization of all companies, which is what the other poster proposed. I simply pointed out just how fucking dangerous and authoritarian that is, and exactly why it's a terrible idea. I pointed to China as a prime example, and even they don't go that far.

We know how it goes, because we've got countless examples of the government controlling the entire media. When the government controls the narrative, then lies and propaganda abound. This isn't fantasy, we have countless examples of it.

USSR

China

Venezuela

North Korea

The Philippines

Cuba

Mind you, many of these didn't even nationalize everything, which is what the person was calling for. They simply nationalized some. Imagine if all the television stations in Russia were controlled by Putin and his regime...

[uuuhname]

the first amendment as it stands is inadequate to protecting democracy in the digital age. because surprise surprise capitalism in of itself is not pro democracy.

[Machismo]

the first amendment as it stands is inadequate to protecting democracy in the digital age. because as it stand capitalism in of itself is not pro democracy.

So, you want to sacrifice the First Amendment?

Well, at least you're finally being honest.

[JohnBrown1917]

Give me a good "for instance."

I asked the other dude, but he ran away.

Any country that does not have something similar to the US's first amendment.
Shame they don't use it to go down on anti-vax bullshit that is costing a lot of lives.