American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Itse]

Yeah, moderated speech is a horrible, impossible thing. I mean just look at Calgarypuck, what a disaster for free speech this is.

It is honestly very funny to listen to Americans talk about free speech, as if you really had it now. The extent to which you police for example profanity, nudity and speech related to sex is so far beyond what at least most of Europe has.

In the US, it's legal for corporations to limit topics that employees can discuss in a workplace, or what words they are allowed to use when discussing certain topics.

The US has basically already completely given up on free speech in so many areas, but the one thing you supposedly can't limit is supposed news stations spewing insane ultraconservative and far-right crap at you 24/7.

Let's remember that the US literally had a law demanding fair and balanced news reporting for decades, and while the law was far from perfect, it did actually achieve quite a lot, and a lot of people who remember it miss it.

You could absolutely make new laws to curb the worst of the insanity and lies, and yeah it would never be perfect, but perfect is an unreasonable bar.

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Just read that people in Springfield are collecting Canada geese for food. Haha, good luck with that. They’re called murder chickens for a reason.

I have always called them Cobra Chickens.

[Wastedyouth]

Lol, I think Mathgod read 1984 and thought Big Brother were the good guys.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Itse

You could absolutely make new laws to curb the worst of the insanity and lies, and yeah it would never be perfect, but perfect is an unreasonable bar.

So you want to make a law that will be instantly co-opted? The fairness doctrine in the States didn't even have anything to do with trying to be an arbiter of truth. It just enforced media to air controversial issues and have people with contrasting views on those issues. I'd be absolutely fine with that coming back into play but anything that goes down the path of only airing the 'truth' is a bridge too far.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Just read that people in Springfield are collecting Canada geese for food. Haha, good luck with that. They’re called murder chickens for a reason.

Who would kill and eat Canada Geese?!!?

Spoiler!

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

You can't legislate people having bad ideas and stupid opinions. You go too far down that road and you end up in the realm of "the one true opinion", or "the true believer".

That's very cultish and counter to the open society you hope to have. It's also the same problem you have with MAGA people.

Listen, I hate it too, but the reality is that you can't police thought, and you can't police speech in that way, at least not without major consequence and restriction of freedom. The other thing of course is that if Tucker is able to convince people that Trump won that debate, and they actually watched that debate with their own eyes, well those people were always going to bend that way, and he really didn't do a whole lot to change their minds.

I know that America is full of a lot of people who don't know a whole lot, and think even less, but it's also full of a lot of very bright people who have very sharp critical thinking skills. And yes, media does warp people sometimes. But the reality is that it's up to the individual to make sense of things and use their cognitive faculties to find the truth. It'd be nice if there were no malicious actors out there, but it's not the reality, and people have to guard against bad ideas with their own brains.

I think the vast majority of people see Trump for what he is. I also think that a lot of Americans simply don't like Democratic party policy and leaders, and that's all Trump really has ever tapped into. But the reaction to guys like Tucker spewing BS on tv isn't to create laws to restrict his speech, especially when it's a pure matter of opinion and not hard fact. All you have to do is point out how stupid and sycophantic he is, and most people will see it for what it is.

So I'm going to disagree, which is weird as i usually agree with your posts.

I think the issue is not the opinions, it's the use of technology to amplify those opinions, and who is in control for that amplification and manipulation.

BOTS
The easiest one I think we can all agree on is the use of bots. Much of twitter and reddit are bots, amplifying messages for other governments or for brands. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's really subtle and all of us miss it.

But bots and managed accounts are really dangerous, as it makes it seem like fringe opinions have wide approval. People think "Maybe this wild idea i had is actually legitimate"

So I can't think of anybody arguing for bots, but I don't know how to get rid of them. I'm sure there is a way.


ALGORITHM
The second aspect is what are algorithm's allowed to promote? The issue is that misinformation drives engagement and time on site. So social media companies make money the more time you spend on their product. That's the only way to grow. This is really bad.

As an example, FB engagement went way down during the 2020 election as they really clamped down on misinformation. So as soon as the election was complete they went back to normal and engagement returned.

So the question is are we happy with complete freedom here? Not what people say, but what the algorithm promotes? I personally think we'd be better served as a society if the incentives were not enormously to promote divisive content and more screen time.

Again, I don't know how to solve this. I'm sure there are many people who have ideas.


MISINFORMATION
This is the hardest to regulate, as you put it. Anybody with money or power is funding research that explains their position is correct. You can tease data so many different ways.

I actually don't know how to solve this one, however suing people when their words have consequences is a good start.

Another aspect is knowingly spreading misinformation (I know, hard to prove) is something that we should be able to police. It could just be you lose your account for a period of time.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

S

MISINFORMATION
This is the hardest to regulate, as you put it. Anybody with money or power is funding research that explains their position is correct. You can tease data so many different ways.

I actually don't know how to solve this one, however suing people when their words have consequences is a good start.

Right-wingers should be able to support this. If they want unfiltered 'free speech' so bad, then make it absolutely possible to sue the #### out of people for libel and defamatory remarks.

You want to say false, vile and hateful things? By all means back those words up with your wallet.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[devo22]

There's just so much nuance to this whole "truth" thing. The Holocaust example that was raised in here illustrates this well because it's just on a completely different level than many other untruths. It makes a ton of sense for countries like Germany and Austria to implement laws that punish denying the Holocaust or engaging in what could be interpreted as resurrecting Nazi ideology. We are talking about something that cost millions of lives, caused unimaginable pain and trauma and just can never ever happen again. Squashing those ideas and punishing perpetrators who downplay Nazi ideas or outright deny the Holocaust makes sense for countries that unfortunately were at the forefront of some very dark times.

In general, I'm certainly not for forbidding opinions and quelling free speech. But what really irks me is how much attention and opportunity is given to bad actors who clearly spout misinformation. I think this was a huge issue during Covid, you would have "panels" on TV where obvious conspiracy theorists and lunatics got as much airtime as disease experts and virologists. What pisses me off is the idea of "here's a scientist with dozens of publications, and here's a hardcore Flat Earther - we'll have them both talk for 10 minutes and give equal value to what they say". This is exactly what leads to the fomentation of misinformation. Social media is a completely different beast altogether, but "traditional" media hasn't helped either.

[activeStick]

Related to censorship, right now one of the world's top film festivals is happening here in Toronto called TIFF, and the city is flooded with producers, actors, directors and visitors eager to watch premieres and meet celebrities, etc., and one of the films has been paused due to, "significant threats to festival operations and public safety", by pro-Ukraine supporters, based on the photos of the protesters at the link below. The festival tried to stay strong and show the film announcing they were not going to pause the film just 2 days ago, but relented today and won't be showing it "until safe to do so".

“While we stand firm on our statement shared yesterday, this decision has been made in order to ensure the safety of all festival guests, staff, and volunteers,” TIFF said in a statement, calling the move “unprecedented.”


“As a cultural institution, we support civil discourse about and through films, including differences of opinion, and we fully support peaceful assembly. However, we have received reports indicating potential activity in the coming days that pose significant risk; given the severity of these concerns, we cannot proceed as planned.”

The producers of the film called the decision by TIFF “heartbreaking.”

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/09/...r-documentary/

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yeah, moderated speech is a horrible, impossible thing. I mean just look at Calgarypuck, what a disaster for free speech this is.

It is honestly very funny to listen to Americans talk about free speech, as if you really had it now. The extent to which you police for example profanity, nudity and speech related to sex is so far beyond what at least most of Europe has.

In the US, it's legal for corporations to limit topics that employees can discuss in a workplace, or what words they are allowed to use when discussing certain topics.

The US has basically already completely given up on free speech in so many areas, but the one thing you supposedly can't limit is supposed news stations spewing insane ultraconservative and far-right crap at you 24/7.

Let's remember that the US literally had a law demanding fair and balanced news reporting for decades, and while the law was far from perfect, it did actually achieve quite a lot, and a lot of people who remember it miss it.

You could absolutely make new laws to curb the worst of the insanity and lies, and yeah it would never be perfect, but perfect is an unreasonable bar.

Social media and the fomenting of misinformation about basic concepts like free speech, civic process, sociopolitical systems, etc... has really twisted some people's thoughts on what those things mean.

Free speech means you are free to stand in a public space and yell about whatever you want. And even that has limits for threatening harm etc... It doesn't mean a news station has to give you time. It doesn't mean they can't interrupt and correct you when you say BS. It doesn't mean a social media site can't ban you. It doesn't mean a store can't kick you out for shouting nonsense. It doesn't mean someone HAS to rent you a microphone for your Nazi rally. Those are private entities and they have the right to refuse service on any basis that's not discriminatory.

People think social media is a public space and it's just not.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Related to censorship, right now one of the world's top film festivals is happening here in Toronto called TIFF, and the city is flooded with producers, actors, directors and visitors eager to watch premieres and meet celebrities, etc., and one of the films has been paused due to, "significant threats to festival operations and public safety", by pro-Ukraine supporters, based on the photos of the protesters at the link below. The festival tried to stay strong and show the film announcing they were not going to pause the film just 2 days ago, but relented today and won't be showing it "until safe to do so".



https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/09/...r-documentary/

I think sometimes you have to read the room.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think sometimes you have to read the room.

I don't know, from the blurb:

In “Russians at War,” Canadian-Russian filmmaker Anastasia Trofimova follows soldiers and medics at the front lines of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Throughout the documentary, some of them express doubts about the war and question their roles in it even as they proceed to follow orders and assert their patriotism.

You can support Ukraine and be interested in watching a movie about Russia's involvement.

[photon]

Sad that this has to be a thing. Six Republicans have signed a commitment to certify the results of the election. With Republicans having a majority in the house not certifying a Harris win could have been a thing.

More than 30 House members, including a half-dozen Republicans, have signed a bipartisan pledge to uphold the results of the 2024 election amid an increased focus on Congress' role in certifying the tally next January.

A pair of House centrists, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.), have worked for months to organize what they’re calling a “unity commitment” — an agreement to “safeguard the fairness and integrity” of this fall’s presidential election.

Five other Republicans also signed on: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) and Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.).

https://www.politico.com/live-update...ction-00178945

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by kevman

I don't know, from the blurb:

In “Russians at War,” Canadian-Russian filmmaker Anastasia Trofimova follows soldiers and medics at the front lines of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Throughout the documentary, some of them express doubts about the war and question their roles in it even as they proceed to follow orders and assert their patriotism.

You can support Ukraine and be interested in watching a movie about Russia's involvement.

Or you can support Ukraine and not give a #### about the struggles of those that have been killing your friends and family.

By reading the room, I mean I think there will be a time to see this film. I'll probably watch this film, but I understand those that don't want to watch this file.

I might be wrong but I think the film maker has a history of working with RT (who love some good propaganda). Is this film propaganda? I don't know.

[Bonded]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/polit...nce/index.html

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

So I'm going to disagree, which is weird as i usually agree with your posts.

I think the issue is not the opinions, it's the use of technology to amplify those opinions, and who is in control for that amplification and manipulation.

BOTS
The easiest one I think we can all agree on is the use of bots. Much of twitter and reddit are bots, amplifying messages for other governments or for brands. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's really subtle and all of us miss it.

But bots and managed accounts are really dangerous, as it makes it seem like fringe opinions have wide approval. People think "Maybe this wild idea i had is actually legitimate"

So I can't think of anybody arguing for bots, but I don't know how to get rid of them. I'm sure there is a way.


ALGORITHM
The second aspect is what are algorithm's allowed to promote? The issue is that misinformation drives engagement and time on site. So social media companies make money the more time you spend on their product. That's the only way to grow. This is really bad.

As an example, FB engagement went way down during the 2020 election as they really clamped down on misinformation. So as soon as the election was complete they went back to normal and engagement returned.

So the question is are we happy with complete freedom here? Not what people say, but what the algorithm promotes? I personally think we'd be better served as a society if the incentives were not enormously to promote divisive content and more screen time.

Again, I don't know how to solve this. I'm sure there are many people who have ideas.


MISINFORMATION
This is the hardest to regulate, as you put it. Anybody with money or power is funding research that explains their position is correct. You can tease data so many different ways.

I actually don't know how to solve this one, however suing people when their words have consequences is a good start.

Another aspect is knowingly spreading misinformation (I know, hard to prove) is something that we should be able to police. It could just be you lose your account for a period of time.

Agreed with all of this.

The first two points are about technology regulation, especially when it comes to social media. I think there is sensible legislation to regulate the use of non-human agents and programs within their domains. That's not free speech though since you're not restricting the individual from voicing their thoughts.

The last is, again, problematic. Beyond libel laws, what can you actually do here? Someone may just be misinformed themselves and spreading it, but that doesn't make it a criminal act. If it's misinformation that leads to illegal acts, that may be up for legislation, but just saying something that's incorrect can't ever be illegal. Firstly because, as I've found working in academia, there's almost never an objective truth, even in some of the physical sciences with hard objective data. Trying to be the arbiter of an absolute truth is a fool's errand. Secondly, how do you prove it was intentional? Unless you can uncover a conspiracy to intentionally misinform people, there's nothing there to prosecute because someone could always plead stupidity, which despite our urges, cannot ever be a crime.

I don't think there's a clean answer here, but that's usually the case in ethical discussions. You weigh out the pros and cons of each option and choose the least worst.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by kevman

I don't know, from the blurb:

In “Russians at War,” Canadian-Russian filmmaker Anastasia Trofimova follows soldiers and medics at the front lines of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Throughout the documentary, some of them express doubts about the war and question their roles in it even as they proceed to follow orders and assert their patriotism.

You can support Ukraine and be interested in watching a movie about Russia's involvement.

And TIFF has the option to show it, or not. The movie isnt banned.

[Barnet Flame]

Press Rambling now in progress

https://www.youtube.com/live/U98qbex...KfsfHq0wI52rpW

[MoneyGuy]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1834598344003579985

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Press Rambling now in progress

https://www.youtube.com/live/U98qbex...KfsfHq0wI52rpW

how long will they let him go? It's like a forever "airing of the grievances"