Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Endus]

No, they are facts. I posted them. Do you want to see the verifiable evidence to back them up? If a statement is made, and it is factual, there really is no way around it.

So, let's make it simple, a very common piece of misinformation.

"People who get the vaccine can still get sick, spread the disease, be hospitalized, and die from Covid-19."

This is 100% a verifiable statement. This is also a classic form of misinformation. A lack of context doesn't make the statement untrue, it makes it incomplete.

On its own? No, it's a statement of fact. In fact, it's part of the spiel on potential side effects you have to agree to in getting the vaccine.

If you then use that as an argument to try and get people to avoid the vaccine, by ignoring that the chance is vastly less than the risk of death from COVID-19 itself, so rare it's not worth consideration, that is when it becomes misinformation.

Once it's in a context that's used to misinform.

You keep ignoring what misinformation is, lying about that, to manufacture a false point here.

[Elegiac]

So, all those verifiably-true claims are not misinformation in your eyes, and you seem to have no recourse.

Aside from that misinformation is not protected speech because it isn't verifiably-true thus meaning Section 230 and the First Amendment don't really apply, rofl.

Really starting to think you just don't understand what misinformation actually is.

[Machismo]

I mean, if you don't, and you waffle between the two as you've been doing, that just means you're a hypocrite and don't actually believe either, because you're not here participating in good faith.

That's certainly an option.



No, this is a dodge, based on you misrepresenting the positions you were presented with. You're lying, here. Again, the point was that if you agree that speech can be restricted, you cannot rationally oppose further restrictions on speech on that basis. You've already conceded that restricting speech can be good. You yourself have admitted it is not grounds for opposition.

When you then oppose it on that basis, you're being a hypocrite.

You can't have it both ways. You pick one, or the other, or you're a hypocrite. Try not excluding "on that basis" the next time you think you've figured out a way to avoid the point.



It is a deflection. But yes; the government can obviously control immigration; barring a known terrorist from immigrating is, obviously, sensible. It's always going to be about why immigration of certain people is being restricted, not that immigration is restricted.

Same with speech, which is why you're not refuting anything here. Just apparently finding out that I'm not going to be a hypocrite about the principles I've set forth.

No, I don't have to choose, because your premise is false, and I simply don't ascribe to what you typed. I simply disagree wit the narrative you tried to present.

It's not a dodge, it shows how bad the argument is for option "A."

I have laid out exactly WHY I do not support what others are trying to push. I did pick one, I picked to drive right through your shitty analogy, and show how piss poor it is. I've explained it so many times, it's absurd.

[Elegiac]

It's not irrelevant, because that's wat a great deal of misinformation is.

Citation needed.

No, I don't have to choose

Then you've chosen to be a hypocrite. Good on you. *slow clap*

[Endus]

Misinformation is nonfactual by definition, please stop bringing up irrelevant tangents.

His argument is essentially that, if I defraud a company I work for by embezzling funds, it's totally okay and not a crime as long as I correctly filled out my time sheets. Those "truths" mean nothing else I did was fraud, magically, somehow.

Like he's doing here, citing facts and ignoring the misinformation context into which they're put, which is what makes them misinformation. You can use those facts legitimately. As many company employees use their time sheets legitimately.

He's being willfully dishonest in the framing.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I don't have to choose, because your premise is false, and I simply don't ascribe to what you typed. I simply disagree wit the narrative you tried to present.

It's not a dodge, it shows how bad the argument is for option "A."

I have laid out exactly WHY I do not support what others are trying to push. I did pick one, I picked to drive right through your shitty analogy, and show how piss poor it is. I've explained it so many times, it's absurd.

Your arguments always boiled down to you not wanting restrictions on speech.

Which is both not an argument (it's just a subjective preference), but also contradicts other statements you've made. Where you support the status quo, which includes exactly that.

[Machismo]

On its own? No, it's a statement of fact. In fact, it's part of the spiel on potential side effects you have to agree to in getting the vaccine.

If you then use that as an argument to try and get people to avoid the vaccine, by ignoring that the chance is vastly less than the risk of death from COVID-19 itself, so rare it's not worth consideration, that is when it becomes misinformation.

Once it's in a context that's used to misinform.

You keep ignoring what misinformation is, lying about that, to manufacture a false point here.

Yes, that's the point. the issue is that the burden of harm, intent, and everything else is entirely on those who want to punish speech. And, since a person is basing it on verifiable facts (even if they are omitting plenty), then they have deniability.

This is especially difficult since it would be nearly impossible to place any single thing as a harmful act. Not only that, you'd have to determine who exactly was harmed, how they were harmed, and exactly how much they read from any single source.

- - - Updated - - -

Citation needed.



Then you've chosen to be a hypocrite. Good on you. *slow clap*

I literally gave examples that I have seen recently.

Done.

[Elegiac]

His argument is essentially that, if I defraud a company I work for by embezzling funds, it's totally okay and not a crime as long as I correctly filled out my time sheets. Those "truths" mean nothing else I did was fraud, magically, somehow.

Like he's doing here, citing facts and ignoring the misinformation context into which they're put, which is what makes them misinformation. You can use those facts legitimately. As many company employees use their time sheets legitimately.

He's being willfully dishonest in the framing.

It's also hilarious that in all the proposals listed in this thread, few of them actually have to do with banning users or stopping anyone from saying anything, rather increasing social media company accountability and transparency, as well as giving them adequate time to fact check things that are going viral, but he's banging on about how it's "stopping people from saying true things".

[Machismo]

His argument is essentially that, if I defraud a company I work for by embezzling funds, it's totally okay and not a crime as long as I correctly filled out my time sheets. Those "truths" mean nothing else I did was fraud, magically, somehow.

Like he's doing here, citing facts and ignoring the misinformation context into which they're put, which is what makes them misinformation. You can use those facts legitimately. As many company employees use their time sheets legitimately.

He's being willfully dishonest in the framing.

- - - Updated - - -



Your arguments always boiled down to you not wanting restrictions on speech.

Which is both not an argument (it's just a subjective preference), but also contradicts other statements you've made. Where you support the status quo, which includes exactly that.

Except, most of the random Facebookers aren't actually defrauding, because they are not gaining money or property from those they are lying to. That creates issues of standing.

My argument boils down to not wanting to restrict speech that is technically factual, or speech that isn't causing verifiable harm. Hell, since there's mobs of millions of Americans spamming this bullshit, trying to find who "shot the gun" would be nearly impossible.

[Elegiac]

I literally gave examples that I have seen recently.

Literally don't give a shit about your anecdotes; citation needed that most misinformation is factual.

[Endus]

Yes, that's the point. the issue is that the burden of harm, intent, and everything else is entirely on those who want to punish speech. And, since a person is basing it on verifiable facts (even if they are omitting plenty), then they have deniability.

Those are trivial to demonstrate.

To demonstrate harm, you just need to demonstrate the potential for people to believe the false statements. Anyone repeating those statements proves this conclusively.

To demonstrate intent, you literally just have to prove they posted the statements. That's intent. Like with a stabbing; "yes, I meant to put that knife into that person" is intent. You seem to want to mean motive, but A> motive isn't necessary for conviction, it just helps, and B> motive is pretty trivial to demonstrate, anyway, since it doesn't have to be proven in the first place, since again, not necessary for conviction.

These are not significant hurdles to surmount. They do not need to demonstrate malice, for instance. "Malice" is not a necessary component of most speech crimes. It can be added for flavor, but it's not particularly necessary.

[Machismo]

Literally don't give a shit about your anecdotes; citation needed that most misinformation is factual.

I don't believe I said most. I said a great deal.


That's why I listed statements. I'm not going to list those stupid Ivermectin studies or sites, because i consider it to be misinformation, and even using it as an example could get me banned. Would you like me to PM them to you?

[Elegiac]

My argument boils down to not wanting to restrict speech that is technically factual, or speech that isn't causing verifiable harm.

Cool, then you aren't actually arguing anything that people here don't already agree with. Piss off.

Hell, since there's mobs of millions of Americans spamming this bullshit, trying to find who "shot the gun" would be nearly impossible.

Besides managing to figure out that it's about 12 accounts on Facebook and Twitter shooting the gun in terms of the majority of anti-vax information, you mean?

[Endus]

Except, most of the random Facebookers aren't actually defrauding, because they are not gaining money or property from those they are lying to. That creates issues of standing.

You understand what analogies are and how they work, right?

Because this counter doesn't make any sense unless you're under the mistaken impression that analogies are tautologies.

I did not claim that fraud was exactly the same as misinformation.

My argument boils down to not wanting to restrict speech that is technically factual, or speech that isn't causing verifiable harm. Hell, since there's mobs of millions of Americans spamming this bullshit, trying to find who "shot the gun" would be nearly impossible.

Then why are you posting here? Misinformation is not factual, and causes verifiable harm.

Lying about that just makes you a liar, it isn't a counterpoint.

[Elegiac]

I don't believe I said most. I said a great deal.

"A great deal" could be anywhere between 1% and 49%.

What's the percentage?

[Machismo]

Those are trivial to demonstrate.

To demonstrate harm, you just need to demonstrate the potential for people to believe the false statements. Anyone repeating those statements proves this conclusively.

To demonstrate intent, you literally just have to prove they posted the statements. That's intent. Like with a stabbing; "yes, I meant to put that knife into that person" is intent. You seem to want to mean motive, but A> motive isn't necessary for conviction, it just helps, and B> motive is pretty trivial to demonstrate, anyway, since it doesn't have to be proven in the first place, since again, not necessary for conviction.

These are not significant hurdles to surmount. They do not need to demonstrate malice, for instance. "Malice" is not a necessary component of most speech crimes. It can be added for flavor, but it's not particularly necessary.

No, that's not intent, because they could simply be the gullible bastard who believed it. A person could simply say they believed it to be true, because that's what they were told.

These are monstrous hurdles to climb in the case of misinformation. if they were easy, then this would have been settled in the Supreme Court years ago.

So, if it's easy, then where are those lawsuits? heck, no further laws would seem to be necessary, and you can take all those individuals to court. Do you honestly think the SCOTUS would rule n your favor?

[Endus]

"A great deal" could be anywhere between 1% and 49%.

What's the percentage?

He's wrong, anyway. Misinformation is all non-factual. He's trying to lie, and present nuggets of truth within the pudding of lies as "proof" that the pudding is truth, which is horseshit nonsense. The pudding is lies, and you don't get to ignore the pudding in this evaluation.

[Machismo]

You understand what analogies are and how they work, right?

Because this counter doesn't make any sense unless you're under the mistaken impression that analogies are tautologies.

I did not claim that fraud was exactly the same as misinformation.



Then why are you posting here? Misinformation is not factual, and causes verifiable harm.

Lying about that just makes you a liar, it isn't a counterpoint.

You even said some of those things were possible actionable.

I do understand analogies, and how they work. That's why I liked my immigration analogy to bust through your ultimatum.

- - - Updated - - -

He's wrong, anyway. Misinformation is all non-factual. He's trying to lie, and present nuggets of truth within the pudding of lies as "proof" that the pudding is truth, which is horseshit nonsense. The pudding is lies, and you don't get to ignore the pudding in this evaluation.

A great deal is a subjective term.

This is the foundation of misinformation, those grains of truths, and statements that are technically correct. Lies are easy to refute, half-truths are easy to believe.

[Endus]

No, that's not intent, because they could simply be the gullible bastard who believed it. A person could simply say they believed it to be true, because that's what they were told.

If you shoot someone because you think they're a demon, because your pastor told you they were, you're still guilty of murder. The pastor just might share some culpability.

You don't seem to understand what "intent" means, since you're confusing it with "motive".

These are monstrous hurdles to climb in the case of misinformation. if they were easy, then this would have been settled in the Supreme Court years ago.

There's currently no law on this to begin with. We're discussing an "ought" argument, not an "is" argument.

This isn't the first time you've willfully confused the two and pretended that confusion was an argument.

[Machismo]

"A great deal" could be anywhere between 1% and 49%.

What's the percentage?

Nope, it's a subjective term, I gave examples. If you like more, I can PM them to you. Do you want me to?

[Elegiac]

A great deal is a subjective term.

Then maybe try something more accurate like "a few accounts I've seen, which aren't generalisable because it's not a statistically significant sample size nor even relevant because misinformation is counterfactual by definition".