The rise of the "Misinformation Police"

[Bijan]

38 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

In Canada and the US we already put limits on what is considered 'free speech'.  The classic law example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre.

I believe in limiting my freedoms to protect myself and others. And also to a lesser extent limiting the freedoms of others to protect myself.

I don't believe in limiting the freedom of others for their own sake.

No one is saying, please restrict speech because otherwise I will be radicalized or misinformed. Or at least to be it seems like a problem of what other people will do.

39 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

In Canada required labelling for food packages and restaurant nutritional information.

I support this and benefit from this. In this case we have long relied on government to certify the basic healthiness of meat, milk, etc.

 

40 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

There is a problem with foreign interference

Sorry to put you on the spot, but do you personally worry about the effects of foreign interference on you or fellow citizens? If fellow citizens friends or family or people further out? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this.

[Fireball]

Globalism and free societies cannot co-exist together.  Liberty is an outdated notion that is dangerous to the individual if wants to toe the line.

I get what you are saying, and there is some truth in it. Living in the US this isn’t that big of an issue IMO. People use the words globalists and globalism to scare people here, but that’s as far as it will ever go. We will never have a law like presented in the OP by Pres.

[Cigar Surgeon]

15 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Sorry to put you on the spot, but do you personally worry about the effects of foreign interference on you or fellow citizens? If fellow citizens friends or family or people further out? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this.

I'm challenging the root of the topic.  Is it okay to limit the 'free speech' of foreign interference? I feel that it is.  But of course a foreign bad actor on social media is going to play the victim and act as if they're domestic.  

17 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I believe in limiting my freedoms to protect myself and others. And also to a lesser extent limiting the freedoms of others to protect myself.

I don't believe in limiting the freedom of others for their own sake.

No one is saying, please restrict speech because otherwise I will be radicalized or misinformed. Or at least to be it seems like a problem of what other people will do.

Radicalization is a major issue and will continue to be an issue going forward. It's something Intelligence communities have been hammering a drum on for at least the past decade.

YouTube just announced they'll "prohibit false claims about cancer treatments under its medical misinformation policy", appropriate timing for this discussion. 

[Bijan]

4 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

I'm challenging the root of the topic.  Is it okay to limit the 'free speech' of foreign interference? I feel that it is.  But of course a foreign bad actor on social media is going to play the victim and act as if they're domestic.  

I'm sorry but I do not accept the distinction between foreign and domestic bad actors in terms of news.

Do you oppose foreign terrorism and tolerate domestic terrorism?

4 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Radicalization is a major issue and will continue to be an issue going forward. It's something Intelligence communities have been hammering a drum on for at least the past decade.

I do not respect intelligence agencies. Spying is necessary for national security. But spies are a necessary evil not who I turn to for advice on policy.

4 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

YouTube just announced they'll "prohibit false claims about cancer treatments under its medical misinformation policy", appropriate timing for this discussion. 

Recent changes in policy or law are not moral arguments. If some policy has been in effect for generations or since the birth of the nation that has some moral weight. But recent policy or laws have no more moral weight than any other historical law, just or unjust, from the past.

[Fireball]

4 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

YouTube just announced they'll "prohibit false claims about cancer treatments under its medical misinformation policy", appropriate timing for this discussion. 

Very interesting and timely indeed for this conversation. I would assume a private entity can do what they want as long as they are not forced by a government to do so. At least for the purposes of this discussion here.

 

[BrightonCorgi]

28 minutes ago, Fireball Ron said:

We will never have a law like presented in the OP by Pres.

This is a good start The tempest over DHS’s Disinformation Governance Board

[Bijan]

2 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Is it okay to limit the 'free speech' of foreign interference? I feel that it is.

Ok, so thinking about it more, we might be talking about different things. I am talking about news, which is what I think we started talking about in this thread.

If we are talking about fake sock puppets in comment threads, and fake social media, then to me that's not a misinformation/fake news issue. Or even a free speech issue. Publishing news that has a fake/fraudulent source is not free speech. If someone steals copies of the New York times from newsstands and substitutes fake copies with different content that's not free speech that one is restricting.

Similarly if people make fake AI generated accounts to push people's buttons online then that's not news or speech. It's much closer to your yelling fire in an elevator, and in that case I agree.

What I'm talking about is the government evaluating the truthfulness of news or the amount of foreign influence. Not the specific issues of social media and manipulating appearances. I am just talking about what facts are allowed to be shared online.

[HarveyBoulevard]

Governments do not get to decide what information is 'dis' or 'mis'...period, at least not in a democratic society run by the people.  I realize many governments are not set up this way but that is a different topic.  The government does not get to decide what the facts are and they do not get to decide what your opinions are.  There are large problems with the disseminators of information AND the receivers of that information in many countries (mine included and maybe even most).  Purveyors of news should be held accountable for their agenda pushing (both sides) by the people who digest the news but most digest what they are fed without much thought as to its contents.  Despite the issues with media dissemination and populace absorption, allowing the government to dictate what constitutes 'dis' or 'mis' is never the answer...never.

I do not pretend to know how to fix it, but I am certain a governmental entity deciding it for us is not the answer.

[Ken Gargett]

9 hours ago, El Presidente said:

That confuses me.

It was largely generally accepted that the world was indeed flat. We could go on for pages on what was once consensus that proved incorrect. 

One shouldn't fear alternative thought/opinion. One should simply be prepared to examine and argue commentary on it's merits. Shine a light, question, investigate.

What we don't need is sanctioned government thought police. Even with best intentions, the threat is the morphing to a modern Spanish Inquisition 

 

 

nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

well, someone had to say it. 

given the way this thread will inevitably go, because someone will transgress foh rules, where does that fit in with free speech? just asking. 

but more seriously, rob's point is apt. if we put a line through something because it is currently the accepted view, we would have a crazy world. flat earth, drowning witches, world created in seven days, no evolution, humans don't cause or contribute to climate change and so on. as rob says, we could go on for pages. 

[El Presidente]

7 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

well, someone had to say it. 

given the way this thread will inevitably go, because someone will transgress foh rules, where does that fit in with free speech? just asking. 

but more seriously, rob's point is apt. if we put a line through something because it is currently the accepted view, we would have a crazy world. flat earth, drowning witches, world created in seven days, no evolution, humans don't cause or contribute to climate change and so on. as rob says, we could go on for pages. 

Let me use your favourite "red herring". 

Read my posts. I never once mentioned "Free Speech".  

This is not a free speech issue. This is a "Government regulating what is acceptable information issue". 

Slippery slope before criticism of a government becomes labelled "Misinformation" and needing removal. 

[Bijan]

9 hours ago, El Presidente said:

This is not a free speech issue. This is a "Government regulating what is acceptable information issue". 

How is that any better? Maybe I don't understand what information is in this context?

Free speech may seem like an individual right, but the collective right has a bigger social impact. It's what we could call a free press or an open society.

If any broadcaster or purveyor of news is limited in what information they can provide, then at most a few thousand employees are inconvenienced and have to edit their stories before publication. But millions of members of the public are deprived of that information.

We'd need to see very clearly what is being limited but from the government website:

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation

"We are seeking your views on the draft Bill and whether it strikes an appropriate balance on a range of issues, including:

 

- freedom of expression

- the complexity of content exemptions

- the scope of the private message exemption

- the size of the penalties and any other issues."

So they see it as limiting freedom of expression at least potentially.

 

Though to be fair the initial implementation seems only to require tracking problematic content not censoring it:

"The ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services."

 

Fact sheet;

 

Generally rather toothless, but the fact that misinformation covers content that is created without the intent to deceive is worrisome in principle.

Disinformation is defined as the same with the intent to cause harm. Again the devil is in the details as to how a government can judge the harm let alone the intent.

[El Presidente]

1 minute ago, Bijan said:

Though to be fair the initial implementation seems only to require tracking problematic content not censoring it:

"The ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services."

Bijan, do you remember when the Canadian government asked for community and stakeholder input regarding plain packaging of cigars? I know quite a few Canadian members here made submissions. 

The same happened in Australia.  Outcome?

They know the end game before they asked for communtiy and stakeholder input. This is simply a necessary process. The final proposal needs to pass parliament however. 

[Bijan]

Just now, El Presidente said:

Bijan, do you remember when the Canadian government asked for community and stakeholder input regarding plain packaging of cigars? I know quite a few Canadian members here made submissions. 

Yes! Very much so. This is why it is worrisome and best to figure out if this is posturing or power grab ASAP.

[El Presidente]

Here is the danger:

Notice the last word: Enforce. 

Look how broad this is. 

Can harm be defined as "a lack of trust" in government policy?"

Jesus, you could drive a truck through that. 

[HarveyBoulevard]

Governmental overreach and the taking of the citizens’ liberties seldom occurs in a single action. It is a sequence of events where the outcome has already been determined, and the most appropriate way for the government to achieve its goal with the least amount of resistance is first identifying what it is they wish to take and/or control. The end is always the same. 

[Fireball]

I didn’t realize until this thread that Oz has those awful ‘plain’ cigar labels like Canada.

Edit: I mean how are plain labeling boxes and cigars not government overreach already?

I know- I am sure there are tons of threads on that topic, it’s just sad to see.

[Ken Gargett]

6 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Let me use your favourite "red herring". 

Read my posts. I never once mentioned "Free Speech".  

This is not a free speech issue. This is a "Government regulating what is acceptable information issue". 

Slippery slope before criticism of a government becomes labelled "Misinformation" and needing removal. 

not that i would ever want anyone to think that this isn't totally about you but about half the posts in this thread (and yes, they may have hijacked your otherwise worthwhile topic) do talk about free speech. my response may have been a catch-all, if you like. otherwise i was pretty much agreeing with you. i would have thought you'd have that framed. 

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

not that i would ever want anyone to think that this isn't totally about you but about half the posts in this thread (and yes, they may have hijacked your otherwise worthwhile topic) do talk about free speech. my response may have been a catch-all, if you like. otherwise i was pretty much agreeing with you. i would have thought you'd have that framed. 

apology accepted 

[westg]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:27 AM, Bill Hayes said:

And they just put the tax up again on beer. 3rd most taxed beers in the world currently. C'mon Aussies, let's aim for #1. Ha ha! I'm gettin' me a moonshine still ASAP.

Plenty of people forking out some serious coin for serious set ups in my neck ol mate. Anyone I know with a canal house with an undercroft has transformed it into a piss trough 🌴😎

[BettyHumpder]

On 8/15/2023 at 10:58 AM, Cigar Surgeon said:

In Canada and the US we already put limits on what is considered 'free speech'.  The classic law example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre.

this is one of the most quoted misnomers in all of legal commentary and one of my favorite nitpicks, so apologies to you, but you get the nitpick treatment today.

it is not illegal to yell 'fire' in a theatre, crowded or not, even if you have no reason to believe there is actually a fire and are yelling 'fire' disingenuously. 

a crime occurs if the yelling of 'fire' creates a scenario where someone is killed in a stampede or riot. you could be convicted of manslaughter. it also depends on the state.

most states have laws against making false reports of an emergency. even then, yelling 'fire' does not constitute a false report. you could feasibly be charged with a misdemeanor if someone heard your yelling 'fire,' called 911, and emergency personnel were dispatched to the theatre only to find out nothing was wrong.

so, much like lots of other examples of speech that have secondary and tertiary consequences, the speech is protected but you are not immune to the negative outcomes of your speech. and, of course, it's probably better to shout fire even if you're unsure, lest you not and 287 people die.

[joeypots]

Where I live money = speech. Just sayin’.

[Cigar Surgeon]

1 hour ago, BettyHumpder said:

this is one of the most quoted misnomers in all of legal commentary and one of my favorite nitpicks, so apologies to you, but you get the nitpick treatment today.

it is not illegal to yell 'fire' in a theatre, crowded or not, even if you have no reason to believe there is actually a fire and are yelling 'fire' disingenuously. 

a crime occurs if the yelling of 'fire' creates a scenario where someone is killed in a stampede or riot. you could be convicted of manslaughter. it also depends on the state.

most states have laws against making false reports of an emergency. even then, yelling 'fire' does not constitute a false report. you could feasibly be charged with a misdemeanor if someone heard your yelling 'fire,' called 911, and emergency personnel were dispatched to the theatre only to find out nothing was wrong.

so, much like lots of other examples of speech that have secondary and tertiary consequences, the speech is protected but you are not immune to the negative outcomes of your speech. and, of course, it's probably better to shout fire even if you're unsure, lest you not and 287 people die.

Right, I'm aware. I was terse in my explanation because in discussions like this it leads to offtopic conversations that are frankly exhausting.

The comparison here is that there is an onslaught of people yelling 'fire' online and causing actual harm, and death in the same way that a stampede or riot would.  There are no legal ramifications for this behavior and the current way of handling it has been left up to the social media platform.

 

[HarveyBoulevard]

Call me old fashioned but anonymous posts, social media, quickfire established media, and a source that got it from another unnamed source that is just quoting another source are to blame.  Hard to punish speech when you don't even know where it is coming from and where no one takes responsibility for their words.

"I didn't say it, I'm just repeating it, don't blame me"

Speech is free...Free speech still may have consequences, just not the government's job to hand out the punishment.

[Ken Gargett]

14 hours ago, El Presidente said:

apology accepted 

and here we have a prime example of misinformation. the mere suggestion...

[MrBirdman]

On 8/15/2023 at 12:42 PM, Bijan said:

Sorry to put you on the spot, but do you personally worry about the effects of foreign interference on you or fellow citizens?

I do. I am regularly treated to politically charged ads posing as documentaries by mysterious organizations which are probably funded by the Chinese government. 

The question for me is the role of government in addressing this, because the state has its own interests and people know it. Further, most of the disinformation relies on echo chambers to spread, where people don’t want to confront anything contrary to their opinion. In essence, many people prefer fiction to reality. That’s very hard to overcome.