Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Elegiac]

I said I'm fine with some restrictions to free speech. I'm not fine with this, because I don't consider a great deal of it harmful

ITT: Machismo doesn't consider misinformation about COVID to be harmful.

[Machismo]

ITT: Machismo doesn't consider misinformation about COVID to be harmful.

Did I harm you with my zipper misinformation?

[Elegiac]

You said misinformation is manifestly harmful. Do you want me to grab the quote?

Sure, please point out where I said all misinformation is manifestly harmful.

Again: why should it be protected speech?

[Endus]

Not only is it a racist country (like so many others), it's also a country that lauds free speech. Now, it may be weak on issues wih the press, but it is quite strong in its support of free speech itself.

Not particularly in comparison with other developed nations, no. That's simply not true.

Particularly as "issues with the press" is a key indicator.

I said I'm fine with some restrictions to free speech. I'm not fine with this, because I don't consider a great deal of it harmful, and because we are dealing with hypotheticals on legislation that isn't even properly defined.

And yet, you can't specify anything. Your only argument boils down to "you don't like a thing". No explanations as to why you don't.

[Machismo]

Sure, please point out where I said all misinformation is manifestly harmful.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/manifestly

You said misinformation is manifestly harmful. Would you care to expound on your interpretation of that word?

[Elegiac]

Not particularly in comparison with other developed nations, no. That's simply not true.

Particularly as "issues with the press" is a key indicator.

To say nothing of pro-union or pro-social justice speech which has a history of being suppressed by the federal and state governments.

- - - Updated - - -

You said misinformation is manifestly harmful. Would you care to expound on your interpretation of that word?

So you can't actually point out where I said all misinformation is manifestly harmful, then.

Stop avoiding the question: why should misinformation be considered protected speech?

[Machismo]

Not particularly in comparison with other developed nations, no. That's simply not true.

Particularly as "issues with the press" is a key indicator.



And yet, you can't specify anything. Your only argument boils down to "you don't like a thing". No explanations as to why you don't.

And I don't see to many other nations cracking down on misinformation, certainly not in a manner like was being proposed around here.

Sure, the Germans ban more hate speech, and Holocaust denial.

Other countries ban insulting the crown, or the monarchy.

But, I don't see too much more than that. The other poster brought up supposed talks between western nations about such legislation, but I never heard back from him on it.


I specific plenty, like the fact that a great deal of it is based on some truths. I also pointed out that proving harm would be difficult.

[Elegiac]

I specific plenty, like the fact that a great deal of it is based on some truths. I also pointed out that proving harm would be difficult.

Both of which Endus debunked as false in the former and irrelevant in the latter case, so your specific counter is still nil.

[Endus]

You said misinformation is manifestly harmful. Do you want me to grab the quote?

See COVID response in the USA, as compared to basically any other developed nation.

The reason for the discrepancy can be nearly entirely put down to "misinformation". That's hundreds of thousands of deaths, let alone everything else.

Canada, by comparison, has had 27,581 deaths from COVID-19. The USA, 680,000. Sure, Canada's a smaller country, but if we control for population, if we had comparable population figures, Canada's rate would only scale up to about 240,000 deaths. So that's, oh, 340,000 cases or so we can put down, in the USA, to "misinformation".

And that's before we get into domestic terrorists and other extremists.

[Machismo]

To say nothing of pro-union or pro-social justice speech which has a history of being suppressed by the federal and state governments.

- - - Updated - - -



So you can't actually point out where I said all misinformation is manifestly harmful, then.

Stop avoiding the question: why should misinformation be considered protected speech?

You said misinformation is manifestly harmful.

Which misinformation were you talking about?

It should be protected speech, because I think it absurd to punish someone for saying your zipper is down, when it is in fact... not down. That is misinformation (assuming your zipper is not down).

- - - Updated - - -

Both of which Endus debunked as false in the former and irrelevant in the latter case, so your specific counter is still nil.

And yet, proving harm, especially in the United States, has been shown to be difficult. The very lawsuits you provided even back me on that.

[Elegiac]

See COVID response in the USA, as compared to basically any other developed nation.

The reason for the discrepancy can be nearly entirely put down to "misinformation". That's hundreds of thousands of deaths, let alone everything else.

Canada, by comparison, has had 27,581 deaths from COVID-19. The USA, 680,000. Sure, Canada's a smaller country, but if we control for population, if we had comparable population figures, Canada's rate would only scale up to about 240,000 deaths. So that's, oh, 340,000 cases or so we can put down, in the USA, to "misinformation".

And that's before we get into domestic terrorists and other extremists.

> "I don't think misinformation should be banned because it's not harmful."
> *provides examples of misinformation being harmful*
> "Well SCOTUS will never agree to it so nyeh."

It's like arguing with a fifth grader.

[Endus]

You said misinformation is manifestly harmful.

Which misinformation were you talking about?

It should be protected speech, because I think it absurd to punish someone for saying your zipper is down, when it is in fact... not down. That is misinformation (assuming your zipper is not down).

That's not misinformation.

The comparison is willful dishonesty on your part.

[Elegiac]

And yet, proving harm, especially in the United States, has been shown to be difficult.

Question: If you think all of these proposals are unfeasible nonstarters, exactly why are you getting so butthurt about something that in your view will never materialise?

Are your enemies simultaneously too strong and too weak, perhaps?

[Endus]

> "I don't think misinformation should be banned because it's not harmful."
> *provides examples of misinformation being harmful*
> "Well SCOTUS will never agree to it so nyeh."

It's like arguing with a fifth grader.

It's exactly like arguing with a racist about anti-racism legislation.

> "I don't think racism should be banned because they really are inferior."
> *provides examples of how it's all bullshit*
> "Well SCOTUS will never ban it so nyeh."
> *US Civil Rights Act passed*
> "Oh, shit."

[Machismo]

See COVID response in the USA, as compared to basically any other developed nation.

The reason for the discrepancy can be nearly entirely put down to "misinformation". That's hundreds of thousands of deaths, let alone everything else.

Canada, by comparison, has had 27,581 deaths from COVID-19. The USA, 680,000. Sure, Canada's a smaller country, but if we control for population, if we had comparable population figures, Canada's rate would only scale up to about 240,000 deaths. So that's, oh, 340,000 cases or so we can put down, in the USA, to "misinformation".

And that's before we get into domestic terrorists and other extremists.

There's also the fact that a very dense city got hit hard early, and the NE as a whole got obliterated.

There's the fact that Americans didn't embrace masks and social distancing like other nations. Some of that may be misinformation, but plenty can be attributed to American machismo, willful ignorance, and just plain selfishness.

As for Canada, it's death rate is about 1/3 of the United States, from what I see. There's also issues of population density. I'm not sure about comorbidities, I have no desire to look into the issue of obesity and other problems... because it's not really relevant.

Now, as for misinformation, Americans see plenty of it. And, people are fucking gullible.

- - - Updated - - -

Question: If you think all of these proposals are unfeasible nonstarters, exactly why are you getting so butthurt about something that in your view will never materialise?

Are your enemies simultaneously too strong and too weak, perhaps?

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Considering I just had Trump and the GOP in power, pushing ethno-nationalism and fascism... I known not to ignore those who seek to legislate their will over me.

Do I think there's very little political capital to pull something like this off? Yes. Do I think it's impossible? Nope.

[Elegiac]

It's exactly like arguing with a racist about anti-racism legislation.

> "I don't think racism should be banned because they really are inferior."
> *provides examples of how it's all bullshit*
> "Well SCOTUS will never ban it so nyeh."
> *US Civil Rights Act passed*
> "Oh, shit."

I like to quote Le Guin in situations like this.

"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words."

Usually the people who insist the present system is immutable are expressing a desire than a point of fact, and then usually because they have a significant stake in maintaining the status quo and should have their opinions be taken with a grain of salt regardless.

[Machismo]

It's exactly like arguing with a racist about anti-racism legislation.

> "I don't think racism should be banned because they really are inferior."
> *provides examples of how it's all bullshit*
> "Well SCOTUS will never ban it so nyeh."
> *US Civil Rights Act passed*
> "Oh, shit."

Bullshit, this is another shitty analogy.

So, to conclude, you've compared me to a pedophile, a slaver, and now a racist.

[Elegiac]

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

But I thought SCOTUS and Congress would never let it happen. Were you lying when you said that?

- - - Updated - - -

Bullshit, this is another shitty analogy.

So, to conclude, you've compared me to a pedophile, a slaver, and now a racist.

Maybe stop using their argument formats and the comparisons will cease? Lol.

[Machismo]

That's not misinformation.

The comparison is willful dishonesty on your part.

Yes, it is misinformation:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...misinformation

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/misinformation

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us...misinformation

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...misinformation

- - - Updated - - -

But I thought SCOTUS and Congress would never let it happen. Were you lying when you said that?

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe stop using their argument formats and the comparisons will cease? Lol.

I'm simply betting that they won't. Then again, I bet the GOP wouldn't be stupid enough to nominate Trump. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, when it comes to stupid people and those who thirst for power.

George Carlin was right.

[Elegiac]

Yes, it is misinformation:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/misinformation

Hold on, what's this?

false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead

Congratulations on refuting yourself, I guess.