Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Elegiac]

So, no examples...

Not in the slightest; there are plenty of analogues in other instances of free speech and its limitations.

[Machismo]

I ignored a deflection, for being irrelevant.

The point of nationalizing social media, in this particular instance, was so that actions could be taken without needing explicitly criminal behaviour to occur.

If you didn't intend to disseminate child porn, you might not be criminally charged for doing so, but your activity which did so is gonna get shut down. Intent is not relevant outside of specific legal contexts.

This isn't a deflection, this is the argument.

"Vaccines are killing people."

"Vaccinated people are still getting sick, and still making others sick."

"I don't trust what the media is saying about the vaccines."

"Fauci is a liar."

"This vaccine is an experiment, and everyone who takes it is a test subject."

"Ivermectin is effective in treating Covid."

Here's prime examples of misinformation, which ones would be actionable in your eyes? Which of those should be censored?

- - - Updated - - -

Not in the slightest; there are plenty of analogues in other instances of free speech and its limitations.

Great, let's see them, specifically in regards to regulating social media companies, which is what you called for.

- - - Updated - - -

then why even bother responding LMAO.

YOU made the claim that libertarianism doesn't allow for chattel slavery, that's your argument, back it up.

This is your straw man... again.

- - - Updated - - -

What does China have to do with the thread? What does authoritiarianism have to do with the thread?

I pointed to what happens when a government seeks to nationalize social media.

Do you have a better example of the government nationalizing social media?

[Elegiac]

Great, let's see them, specifically in regards to regulating social media companies

You do understand the concept of an analogue, yes? Rofl.

Move those goalposts a bit further and you might actually catch one.

[Endus]

This isn't a deflection, this is the argument.

"Vaccines are killing people."

"Vaccinated people are still getting sick, and still making others sick."

"I don't trust what the media is saying about the vaccines."

"Fauci is a liar."

"This vaccine is an experiment, and everyone who takes it is a test subject."

"Ivermectin is effective in treating Covid."

Here's prime examples of misinformation, which ones would be actionable in your eyes? Which of those should be censored?

Depends of context. All of them are potentially actionable.

[Machismo]

You do understand the concept of an analogue, yes? Rofl.

I used one, and people got upset, and it even related to social media itself.

[Endus]

I pointed to what happens when a government seeks to nationalize social media.

Do you have a better example of the government nationalizing social media?

I've already provided examples of other forms of nationalized media. Social media is new enough there simply aren't enough examples to draw any universal conclusions, despite your repeated attempts to do so based on what, two examples? From two of the most authoritarian countries on the planet? Context you willfully ignore in your own attempt to use those examples?

[uuuhname]

phrases Machismo does not understand:

This is your straw man... again.

[Elegiac]

I used one

Thus acknowledging their validity. QED.

[Machismo]

Depends of context. All of them are potentially actionable.

That's the problem. Every single one of those has a grain of truth.

This is the problem, it makes enforcement almost entirely subjective on issues like these. And I am very hesitant about legislation on subjective interpretations of opinions, and even things that are factually true.

Vaccines are actually killing people. Even the CDC recognizes a possible causal relationship between the vaccines an a few deaths.

Vaccinated people do still get sick and they do still get others sick. They just happen to get people sick at lower rates than unvaccinated people.

People don't trust what the media says, that is a simple opinion.

Fauci is a liar, we are all liars. Everyone lies about things from time to time. I lied to my kids about Santa Claus.

The vaccine is technically an experiment, a highly successful one, and continued testing is still going on to this day. Shit, they are still doing testing on aspirin.

There have been some studies that show Ivermectin is successfully treating Covid patients, especially when combined with other drugs. Sure, there's been studies that show otherwise, but some studies do back it up.

That's why it's exceedingly difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

I've already provided examples of other forms of nationalized media. Social media is new enough there simply aren't enough examples to draw any universal conclusions, despite your repeated attempts to do so based on what, two examples? From two of the most authoritarian countries on the planet? Context you willfully ignore in your own attempt to use those examples?

And you provided a single Canadian Broadcast Company. This would be the same as nationalizing literally all the television stations and even the streaming services all at the same time.

That's what he was calling for.

This isn't just about PBS.

- - - Updated - - -

phrases Machismo does not understand:

Once again, you called to nationalize all social media companies (or maybe literally all companies).

- - - Updated - - -

Thus acknowledging their validity. QED.

Yes, so you agree that what China did to their social media is bad?

[Endus]

That's the problem. Every single one of those has a grain of truth.

And?

If I were to say "Machismo has sex with children", there's grains of truth in there. You go by the handle "Machismo", and I presume you've had sex at some point in your life. The objectionable part is where I go beyond those grains of truth.

Like I said; context.

This is the problem, it makes enforcement almost entirely subjective on issues like these. And I am very hesitant about legislation on subjective interpretations of opitions, and even things that are factually true.

In the case of nationalization, it's a matter of enforcing terms-of-use policies, not laws.

And man, if you've got an issue with subjective interpretation, wait until you look into how court cases are prosecuted. The entire point of a jury is to introduce subjectivity into the process. Trial by jury is all about subjectivity. If it were about objective facts, the jury would be irrelevant, as the judge can put 2 and 2 together as well (better, generally) than most jury members.

This is a "difficulty" that's been "solved" for literally centuries.

[uuuhname]

Once again, you called to nationalize all social media companies (or maybe literally all companies).

once again, not a strawman argument.

[Machismo]

And?

If I were to say "Machismo has sex with children", there's grains of truth in there. You go by the handle "Machismo", and I presume you've had sex at some point in your life. The objectionable part is where I go beyond those grains of truth.

Like I said; context.



In the case of nationalization, it's a matter of enforcing terms-of-use policies, not laws.

And man, if you've got an issue with subjective interpretation, wait until you look into how court cases are prosecuted. The entire point of a jury is to introduce subjectivity into the process. Trial by jury is all about subjectivity. If it were about objective facts, the jury would be irrelevant, as the judge can put 2 and 2 together as well (better, generally) than most jury members.

This is a "difficulty" that's been "solved" for literally centuries.

No, where is the grain of truth to that?

Literally all those claims are technically true. Meanwhile, what you said is objectively fucking false.

[Endus]

No, where is the grain of truth to that?

I literally explained that.

"Grains of truth" aren't about the whole thing, they're about the little bits that are trivially true. That's the point of the word "grain" in the phrase.

Literally all those claims are technically true. Meanwhile, what you said is objectively fucking false.

I'm not sure why you're playing dumb, here. It's really not that difficult to identify misinformation. If volunteer mods can do that on a site like this, government employees can figure it out too.

[Machismo]

I literally explained that.



I'm not sure why you're playing dumb, here. It's really not that difficult to identify misinformation. If volunteer mods can do that on a site like this, government employees can figure it out too.

And yet, you are then literally calling to censor things that are the truth. Every single quote was true. Sure, some were half truths, but they were all technically true.

I mean, talk about a slippery slope.

This is why all the vague calls to go after social media are going to be met with skepticism. I don't trust the government to hold a proper press conference, much less police a billion posts a day... and that's just on one site. As for mods doing it. What happens when those mods are put in place by someone like Trump?

So, let's use this site as an example. We saw what happened when that occurred, and it was a shitshow.

[Elegiac]

Yes, so you agree that what China did to their social media is bad?

The gestalt of what they did was bad, yes. But that's well above and beyond nationalization or whatever else people have been calling for in this thread.

This is some "but Venezuela" levels of thinkery. Rofl.

[Machismo]

The gestalt of what they did was bad, yes. But that's well above and beyond nationalization or whatever else people have been calling for in this thread.

This is some "but Venezuela" levels of thinkery. Rofl.

Actually, it's not. he was calling for the nationalization of all companies. Even if he just meant all social media companies, that's still well above what even China does. China was simply the closest analogy I could think of, other than possibly North Korea. But, NK just doesn't let their people even see the internet, so I simply opted for the more relevant one.

[Elegiac]

Actually, it's not.

"Public ownership of companies is above and beyond preemptively blocking entire websites for spurious reasons as well as constantly monitoring the internet activity of every citizen."



Such thinkery.

[Shadowferal]

once again, not a strawman argument.

Wasting your time.
He has time and time again been bullshitting...
He's even admitted twice before in separate threads that he's not interested in showing he has a convincing argument, let alone convince you that he has argument that has any validity to begin with. And when backed into a corner he'll claim his shitty argument was yours all along, not his. He's lied, obfuscated, moved goal posts...demands you provide info so he can dump all over it while refusing to show his own homework. You don't engage libertarians for any reason. They've been proven to be the most worthless of creatures when they are not showing how rotten they are as human beings.

[Machismo]

"Public ownership of companies is above and beyond preemptively blocking entire websites for spurious reasons as well as constantly monitoring the internet activity of every citizen."



Such thinkery.

Umm, this doesn't even make any sense. You edited out the bulk of my comment, then added in something else in quotes. Who is supposedly saying that?

- - - Updated - - -

Wasting your time.
He has time and time again been bullshitting...
He's even admitted twice before in separate threads that he's not interested in showing he has a convincing argument, let alone convince you that he has argument that has any validity to begin with. And when backed into a corner he'll claim his shitty argument was yours all along, not his. He's lied, obfuscated, moved goal posts...demands you provide info so he can dump all over it while refusing to show his own homework. You don't engage libertarians for any reason. They've been proven to be the most worthless of creatures when they are not showing how rotten they are as human beings.

This doesn't even make any sense. I'm trying to talk about the thread.

Do you want to discuss the thread, it's about troll farms and Facebook.

[Endus]

And yet, you are then literally calling to censor things that are the truth. Every single quote was true. Sure, some were half truths, but they were all technically true.

In a void, maybe.

In a broader context? Not so much.

I'm not interested in ignoring context because that's the only way your argument holds up.

I mean, talk about a slippery slope.

Slippery slope arguments are inherently irrational. If you can't connect every single step, I have no reason to consider it at all.

This is why all the vague calls to go after social media are going to be met with skepticism. I don't trust the government to hold a proper press conference, much less police a billion posts a day... and that's just on one site. As for mods doing it. What happens when those mods are put in place by someone like Trump?

So, let's use this site as an example. We saw what happened when that occurred, and it was a shitshow.

What the hell are you even talking about? Mods here weren't picked by someone like Trump.