seems like a slippery slope when one can't trust their own people to be able to distinguish between facts/non-facts, so much that one needs laws to ban certain types of content and prevent it from being seen. makes me wonder if this will not even cause further conspiracy and drive traffic to alternative (underground e.g. outlawed) information channels
pretty hard to draw a line especially in relation to satire/comedy etc. There is no point of irony/satire if it has to be labeled as such.
misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies
PDF says all of the above. Obviously the democrats are the ones who will define what's a lie. Any Americans here think it's appropriate to allow the democrat party to define what's a lie and then have it censored?
"Right-wing media outlets, like Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News"
It's interesting that the democrat government is pressuring ATT to deplatform their political opponents.
>seems like a slippery slope when one can't trust their own people to be able to distinguish between facts/non-facts, so much that one needs laws to ban certain types of content and prevent it from being seen. makes me wonder if this will not even cause further conspiracy and drive traffic to alternative (underground e.g. outlawed) information channels
I have never in my life seen such a political divide in the USA. It's very much like during the Vietnam war. Afterall the USA has now been at war longer than it ever has been.
> Obviously the democrats are the ones who will define what's a lie.
Obviously not, if this would happen through legislation, absent erasure of the filibuster or the inconceivable result, given the structural biases in the US electoral system, of the Democrats securing a Senate supermajority.
> Any Americans here think it's appropriate to allow the democrat party to define what's a lie and then have it censored?
I haven't seen any proposal for any political party or government apparatus to either determine what is a lie or to have it censored, or to take any other concrete action whatsoever.
I've seen an inquiry into what private parties in a regulated industry are doing, which presumably might feed back into how that industry is regulated in any of a number of ways that don't involve government determination of truth or state-directed censorship.
> It's interesting that the democrat government is pressuring ATT to deplatform their political opponents.
The “democrat government”, whatever that is, is doing no such thing. They are asking for information about AT&T has done and metrics AT&T might have about past events, not directing or suggesting any future course of action.
> "Obviously the democrats are the ones who will define what's a lie
How can you live through 4 years of President trump calling "fake news" and "lying media" about something at least every week, and then straight faced say "obviously the democrats are the ones who decide what's a lie"?
> "Any Americans here think it's appropriate to allow the democrat party to define what's a lie and then have it censored?"
Remember last year when Twitter fact-checked a tweet by President Trump and "In response, Trump threatened in a set of tweets Wednesday to “strongly regulate or close” down social-media platforms. He followed up by signing an executive order late Thursday that seeks to limit some of the broad liability protection social media companies have under federal law."?[1]
Yeah, any americans think it would be bad if the Democrats did this? Hopefully.
Any Republicans think it was actually bad when Republicans actually did this? People in this thread are saying that two members of Congress sending a letter is "chilling intimidation", compared to the President signing an executive order removing legal protections from social media companies?
seems like a slippery slope when one can't trust their own people to be able to distinguish between facts/non-facts, so much that one needs laws to ban certain types of content and prevent it from being seen. makes me wonder if this will not even cause further conspiracy and drive traffic to alternative (underground e.g. outlawed) information channels
pretty hard to draw a line especially in relation to satire/comedy etc. There is no point of irony/satire if it has to be labeled as such.