Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Elegiac]

So, what law are we talking about?

A hypothetical future law regulating social media. You know, an ought argument.

When dealing with things that are largely subjective, the courts are going to stick with protecting speech.

I like how you have to fall back on the dysfunction of the American system as a defense rather than actually being able to justify why misinformation should be protected speech. Lol.

[Endus]

Once again, not only do you have to show harm, you also have to show intent. And, in the case of slander and libel, you'd have to show them to be false statements.

The "intent" is covered by "did you mean to post this statement". I have no idea why you think it goes any further than that.

And again; we're not talking about slander or libel. If it were slander/libel, it would already be covered by the extant law. You're deflecting, again.

You keep trying to compare it to child porn, which is fuckin stupid. These are factual statements, that are not against the law. That's like comparing a scathing Yelp review to rape.

Why is it "stupid"? Pornography is, explicitly and definitively, speech. Child pornography, specifically, is banned speech, in that it's criminal to disseminate or produce it at all.

I don't care that facts are misused in deliberately misleading contexts. It's those "misleading contexts" that make it disinformation. You can cite "facts" in ways that are willfully dishonest. Obviously. "But it's technically true if you add in a bunch of context I deliberately excluded" is just explaining exactly how you were maliciously dishonest, not that you weren't dishonest.

If you had your way, I could dodge a fraud accusation by pointing to the bits in the pitch that weren't lies, as if that counters all the bits that were lies.

[Shadowferal]

so we're reduced to out right lying now? that's how you think you "win" this discussion? you're pathetic...

We're also reduced to "because it's legal then it's good."

[Machismo]

A hypothetical future law regulating social media. You know, an ought argument.



I like how you have to fall back on the dysfunction of the American system as a defense rather than actually being able to justify why misinformation should be protected speech. Lol.

Then "common law" isn't going to be the future argument, and this supposed law will. Since we see no law, and cannot even properly discuss it, then it's simply a whim.

You spoke of other "western" countries talking about such laws, but never gave specifics as to what they were discussing.

[Endus]

When dealing with things that are largely subjective, the courts are going to stick with protecting speech.

Again, the literal purpose of a jury system is to introduce subjectivity into the legal process and rely on subjective interpretations of laypeople in determining what is or is not "justice".

[Machismo]

so we're reduced to out right lying now? that's how you think you "win" this discussion? you're pathetic...

That's not a lie, that's literally what is being discussed.

[Elegiac]

Then "common law" isn't going to be the future argument.

Common law was never the justification for this besides you misinterpreting people's posts as usual, bub.

[Machismo]

Again, the literal purpose of a jury system is to introduce subjectivity into the legal process and rely on subjective interpretations of laypeople in determining what is or is not "justice".

This is going to end up in the hands of the Supreme Court, no jury there.

In the case of a jury, all the defense would have to argue, is that their speech is protected, because their statements are verifiably true.

the burden falls entirely on those making the accusations, and getting past the fact that the statements were true, is a huge mountain to climb. What would a lay person think, if a libel suit was brought, and the statements were true?

- - - Updated - - -

Common law was never the justification for this besides you misinterpreting people's posts as usual, bub.

You claimed common law.

Meanwhile, this hypothetical law would mean punishing speech that is verifiably correct.

[Elegiac]

In the case of a jury, all the defense would have to argue, is that their speech is protected, because their statements are verifiably true.

Then it wasn't misinformation by definition and would have been cleared by fact checking.

Remind me what you're complaining about, again?

[Endus]

That's not a lie, that's literally what is being discussed.

You get a choice of two options, here;

A> The government already controls speech, as can be demonstrated by the many forms of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, including, yes, child porn. You've stated you support this status quo, ergo, you support the government controlling speech, and have no business complaining about further laws in that regard, on that basis.

B> The actions of the government in restricting harmful speech cannot be construed as "controlling speech", as it blacklists harmful actions rather than whitelisting approved speech topics or the like. In this case, you need to retract the claim that a proposed anti-misinformation law would be "the government controlling speech", because this is entirely in line with the existing framings of unprotected speech, which you've now agreed are not "the government controlling speech".

It's A or B. And either way, you've tripped over yourself.

[Elegiac]

You claimed common law.

As a rebuttal to your claim truth is the deciding factor when it comes to protected speech, not as justification for regulating social media.

The justification for regulating social media is the rampant plague of fake news and misinformation that has caused or contributed to several major political and social crises. Try to keep up.

[Machismo]

Then it wasn't misinformation by definition and would have been cleared by fact checking.

Remind me what you're complaining about, again?

Except... they are facts, which is the problem.

[Elegiac]

Except... they are facts

That's nice, except... we're talking about misinformation.

You're the one who barged off on this stupid tangent about the government banning facts despite there being no evidence that would be the outcome and no one actually expressing support for banning factual information.

[Shadowferal]

It's true that drinking bleach is a cure for viruses...so says Trump.

[Endus]

This is going to end up in the hands of the Supreme Court, no jury there.

Just the subjective opinions of SCOTUS judges.

Again; the court system is intentionally subjective.

In the case of a jury, all the defense would have to argue, is that their speech is protected, because their statements are verifiably true.

That wouldn't work. Already explained why. Because the defense's argument there is a false statement. So false it could potentially get them disbarred just for trying that kind of shit.

the burden falls entirely on those making the accusations, and getting past the fact that the statements were true, is a huge mountain to climb. What would a lay person think, if a libel suit was brought, and the statements were true?

Again, still not talking about libel, here. Why do you keep bringing it up?

The "truth" defense only works for libel. And wouldn't even apply to misinformation cases, because the statements are not true. You're lying when you claim they are. You're willfully ignoring context, as those pushing the misinformation do. That makes it a lie.

[Machismo]

You get a choice of two options, here;

A> The government already controls speech, as can be demonstrated by the many forms of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, including, yes, child porn. You've stated you support this status quo, ergo, you support the government controlling speech, and have no business complaining about further laws in that regard, on that basis.

B> The actions of the government in restricting harmful speech cannot be construed as "controlling speech", as it blacklists harmful actions rather than whitelisting approved speech topics or the like. In this case, you need to retract the claim that a proposed anti-misinformation law would be "the government controlling speech", because this is entirely in line with the existing framings of unprotected speech, which you've now agreed are not "the government controlling speech".

It's A or B. And either way, you've tripped over yourself.

No, I don't have to choose.

I have agreed that the government restricts speech, and has done so on many occasions. Of course i can complain about further laws. That's like saying you think the government has a right to place regulations on immigration, so therefore you have no business complaining if they restrict all immigration, or decide to ban Muslims from entering the country.

So, sufficiently popped.

So, you do think the government is allowed to control immigration, do you not?

Careful. Besides, I know you'll call this a deflection, when it's really just an easy way to refute your assertion.

[Endus]

Except... they are facts, which is the problem.

Again, not in the context being discussed, they aren't.

It's like how people can cite accurate crime statistics, but frame them to highlight an over-representation of black citizens, to push a racist agenda, and that the statistics are technically true won't provide any kind of defense if they get fired or their actions amount to enough to qualify for hate crime charges. Because of the surrounding context of everything else being said/done.

[Machismo]

That's nice, except... we're talking about misinformation.

You're the one who barged off on this stupid tangent about the government banning facts despite there being no evidence that would be the outcome and no one actually expressing support for banning factual information.

And as I pointed out, that can come in the form of verifiable facts. So, do you want to restrict people from making those factual statements?

The list was provided.

There is no evidence, because your imaginary law doesn't exist, and you have yet to properly explain it. That's not a "me" problem.

[Elegiac]

And as I pointed out, that can come in the form of verifiable facts.

In a context that would make the gestalt nonfactual, thus putting your 'truth' argument in the ground. Rofl.

You don't get out of a fraud indictment because some of what you said was true, dude.

[Machismo]

Again, not in the context being discussed, they aren't.

It's like how people can cite accurate crime statistics, but frame them to highlight an over-representation of black citizens, to push a racist agenda, and that the statistics are technically true won't provide any kind of defense if they get fired or their actions amount to enough to qualify for hate crime charges. Because of the surrounding context of everything else being said/done.

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.