Ministry of Truth

34,043 Views | 650 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Cobretti
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
Russia, China and other adversaries have used social media to push messages at U.S. audiences that stoke division and spread conspiracy theories or falsehoods. YOU SHOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.

There's no way to get a handle on that if you aren't censoring Americans. Period. That's far worse than dealing with a few thousand people who get conned by another country.

"If I was given a choice between a government with no newspapers or newspapers with no government, I would choose the latter." Thomas Jefferson
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
Russia, China and other adversaries have used social media to push messages at U.S. audiences that stoke division and spread conspiracy theories or falsehoods. YOU SHOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.

There's no way to get a handle on that if you aren't censoring Americans. Period. That's far worse than dealing with a few thousand people who get conned by another country.

"If I was given a choice between a government with no newspapers or newspapers with no government, I would choose the latter." Thomas Jefferson
Russia and China don't have 1st Amendment rights. To the extent it's possible to counter them without violating our rights, you should be fine with that. If our rights are violated, we should be able to figure it out.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
jupiter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How we got to this point matters, not just that we have arrived. Paths in multiple directions forward from here look sketchy, we must instead turn around and go back the way we came to the point where we lost our way and then take the more promising paths from there
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.
Good questions, thanks. Will take this up when I have more time.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is really simple. Spooks already monitor foreign disinformation. The only reason you want a 30-year-old, dingbat theater major to police information is so the regime can launder the truth through Glee Club.
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
under oath, Facebook said that their fact checking was more opinion than fact
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti said:


What. In. The. Hell.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti said:


elon be like..
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
under oath, Facebook said that their fact checking was more opinion than fact
In their case it may be. I don't know many people who are that impressed with their process.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Robert Wilson said:

Cobretti said:


What. In. The. Hell.
Cue Sam to say it's debunked.

Despite the video
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.
I doubt that it's a reaction to the sale of Twitter. It would have been planned for longer than that. These are just two stories that are in the news at the same time, and people are assuming they're connected.

The difference between now and the days of pamphleteering is that critical thinking skills haven't kept up with social media technology. We know that anyone can share a pamphlet. What's in a newspaper or on a video screen used to be more authoritative because not anyone could produce it. It had to go through an editorial process, which included fact-checking. That was already built in. It wasn't perfect, but it was a process and there were standards.

Now anyone can produce a video for thousands or millions to see, and there's no vetting process. That's fine in and of itself, but here's the catch: our brains haven't figured out that the screen lost its authority. No one goes running to their friends and says, "You have GOT to hear what some random drunk told me on the street last night! This guy has it all figured out!" But we'll share a YouTube clip from the same guy, and people will listen because it's on the same screen where they watch the news. Or we'll retweet a quote from who knows where, and people will read it because it's in the same space where they read a (virtual) paper. It takes a lot of cognitive energy to sort the wheat from the chaff, and most people won't or can't take the time.

As for abuses, it is difficult to get rid of a department, but that is rarely if ever a first resort. The more likely remedy is through the courts, as it was with the IRS example. They can handle injuries relatively quickly, on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a groundswell of voter support. In doing so they are also setting precedents that will govern the agency's conduct in the future.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No one needs a government agency to say what is and isn't true. And no one will believe them anyhow. 1/2 of the population is going to cry foul automatically just based on party line. I shouldn't say no one needs…rather the people that DO need it won't listen.

It's waste at best.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

No one needs a government agency to say what is and isn't true. And no one will believe them anyhow. 1/2 of the population is going to cry foul automatically just based on party line. I shouldn't say no one needs…rather the people that DO need it won't listen.

It's waste at best.
Not to mention, more bloated gorvernment and employees on the tax payer roll.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
under oath, Facebook said that their fact checking was more opinion than fact
In their case it may be. I don't know many people who are that impressed with their process.
An answer to what power the DGB wants.

As tweeted above, the head of the DGB wants "trustworthy verified people" like her to be able to "add context" to other people's tweets.

You ok with that?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
under oath, Facebook said that their fact checking was more opinion than fact
In their case it may be. I don't know many people who are that impressed with their process.
An answer to what power the DGB wants.

As tweeted above, the head of the DGB wants "trustworthy verified people" like her to be able to "add context" to other people's tweets.

You ok with that?
I don't know. Is it something that involves the government, or just something Twitter could allow? Would they only edit their own conversations, or other users' too? I'm a little suspicious that I can't find a longer clip of this video.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
under oath, Facebook said that their fact checking was more opinion than fact
In their case it may be. I don't know many people who are that impressed with their process.
An answer to what power the DGB wants.

As tweeted above, the head of the DGB wants "trustworthy verified people" like her to be able to "add context" to other people's tweets.

You ok with that?
I don't know. Is it something that involves the government, or just something Twitter could allow? Would they only edit their own conversations, or other users' too? I'm a little suspicious that I can't find a longer clip of this video.
I think it would be similar to how twitter already does this, just it would be the DGB doing it instead across all social media platforms.

Lets say it's the DGB essentially flagging tweets, FB posts, Instagram posts, or YouTube videos with a little note next to it that says "content may be misleading, click here for the accurate context of this topic". Or maybe even there's a documentary being released and they decide to flash a misinformation warning on the screen prior to it starting, like they already do with theft.

Technically that's not censorship, but it does insinuate that the content you're looking at is false. The effect that has on people will be catastrophic. If everyone points to the DGB's interpretation of something, that's a massive problem.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
under oath, Facebook said that their fact checking was more opinion than fact
In their case it may be. I don't know many people who are that impressed with their process.
An answer to what power the DGB wants.

As tweeted above, the head of the DGB wants "trustworthy verified people" like her to be able to "add context" to other people's tweets.

You ok with that?
I don't know. Is it something that involves the government, or just something Twitter could allow? Would they only edit their own conversations, or other users' too? I'm a little suspicious that I can't find a longer clip of this video.
I think it would be similar to how twitter already does this, just it would be the DGB doing it instead across all social media platforms.

Lets say it's the DGB essentially flagging tweets, FB posts, Instagram posts, or YouTube videos with a little note next to it that says "content may be misleading, click here for the accurate context of this topic". Or maybe even there's a documentary being released and they decide to flash a misinformation warning on the screen prior to it starting, like they already do with theft.

Technically that's not censorship, but it does insinuate that the content you're looking at is false. The effect that has on people will be catastrophic. If everyone points to the DGB's interpretation of something, that's a massive problem.
Sam needs more time to figure out a way for him to argue that it's no big deal. He has zero problems with bloated government and their programs. Especially programs that crazy close to infringing on someone's constitutional rights
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.
under oath, Facebook said that their fact checking was more opinion than fact
In their case it may be. I don't know many people who are that impressed with their process.
An answer to what power the DGB wants.

As tweeted above, the head of the DGB wants "trustworthy verified people" like her to be able to "add context" to other people's tweets.

You ok with that?
I don't know. Is it something that involves the government, or just something Twitter could allow? Would they only edit their own conversations, or other users' too? I'm a little suspicious that I can't find a longer clip of this video.
I think it would be similar to how twitter already does this, just it would be the DGB doing it instead across all social media platforms.

Lets say it's the DGB essentially flagging tweets, FB posts, Instagram posts, or YouTube videos with a little note next to it that says "content may be misleading, click here for the accurate context of this topic". Or maybe even there's a documentary being released and they decide to flash a misinformation warning on the screen prior to it starting, like they already do with theft.

Technically that's not censorship, but it does insinuate that the content you're looking at is false. The effect that has on people will be catastrophic. If everyone points to the DGB's interpretation of something, that's a massive problem.
I would oppose that. It's a form of compelled speech IMO.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.
I doubt that it's a reaction to the sale of Twitter. It would have been planned for longer than that. These are just two stories that are in the news at the same time, and people are assuming they're connected.

The difference between now and the days of pamphleteering is that critical thinking skills haven't kept up with social media technology. We know that anyone can share a pamphlet. What's in a newspaper or on a video screen used to be more authoritative because not anyone could produce it. It had to go through an editorial process, which included fact-checking. That was already built in. It wasn't perfect, but it was a process and there were standards.

Now anyone can produce a video for thousands or millions to see, and there's no vetting process. That's fine in and of itself, but here's the catch: our brains haven't figured out that the screen lost its authority. No one goes running to their friends and says, "You have GOT to hear what some random drunk told me on the street last night! This guy has it all figured out!" But we'll share a YouTube clip from the same guy, and people will listen because it's on the same screen where they watch the news. Or we'll retweet a quote from who knows where, and people will read it because it's in the same space where they read a (virtual) paper. It takes a lot of cognitive energy to sort the wheat from the chaff, and most people won't or can't take the time.

As for abuses, it is difficult to get rid of a department, but that is rarely if ever a first resort. The more likely remedy is through the courts, as it was with the IRS example. They can handle injuries relatively quickly, on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a groundswell of voter support. In doing so they are also setting precedents that will govern the agency's conduct in the future.
I also doubt it was just the Twitter sale that was the impetus. I also doubt that this move was seriously thought through. If there is another government body that proves to be untrustworthy, this one will be in the limelight to become just that.

As to the issue of "if it's on the internet it must be true" - I really don't think that has been an issue since over a decade ago. People learn and adapt. What has happened is the lack of trust in media makes it harder to get good information, so many have resorted to getting a few sources they feel good about, even if not the most reliable. Hence talk radio for conservatives and TV shows for liberals (like The View) have become "news" sources. Traditional cable news has seen this and just followed the viewership to one side or another. The old network news (NBC, CBS, ABC) have all become much more shrill over the last 4 decades. Just watch the first minute announcing all the main headlines like they are the old paper boy selling extra editions due to a big breaking story. Make that a scared, over-dramatic paper boy.


I'm afraid the IRS has been in court many times, but likely not enough times due to protection under the law. Also, court cases with the IRS are not quickly resolved and are complex due to the laws governing it. Thant means it gets real expensive to fight the IRS (or any other government agency). The case represented in the link took 5 years to get to the first half of resolution. That's as long as it took the Nazis to get to the point of threatening war after Hitler became Chancellor. Much harm can be done before such a case can be resolved.

Also, in this case, this unit of Homeland Security needs to be squashed soon, as a first resort. It has no where good to grow its power without limiting speech. The government does not need to have anyone but the FBI, CDC, State Department, FCC, FEC, SBA, Justice Department, etc. putting out corrections and warnings on any possible foreign or domestic disinformation that falls within their purview. The experts in the know and not some central information aack-of-all-trades filtering body need to be sending out the U.S. Government viewpoint. DGA will likely be a laughingstock very soon. It will be either ineffective since it requires that the people trust it, or it will exceed its power trying to exert authority to overcome that weakness.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

nein51 said:

No one needs a government agency to say what is and isn't true. And no one will believe them anyhow. 1/2 of the population is going to cry foul automatically just based on party line. I shouldn't say no one needs…rather the people that DO need it won't listen.

It's waste at best.
Not to mention, more bloated gorvernment and employees on the tax payer roll.

That's what I meant by "it's a waste, at best"

It's worthless, there can be exactly 0 good uses and it adds even more people to government jobs.

Nevermind the fact that we live in a time where people actually believe that a dude in a dress who calls himself a woman is an ACTUAL woman. We have gotten to the point where facts just don't matter at all. So an agency designed (one would hope) to discern fact from fiction is literally doomed to failure from the start.

Just imagine when the democrats lose the presidency and the "ministry of truth" is lead by Dinesh. Peoples heads will explode.

This is a bad plan, it's a bad plan regardless of who is in charge and it will remain a bad plan going forward.
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:




This is a bad plan, it's a bad plan regardless of who is in charge and it will remain a bad plan going forward.
This is self evident to anyone with a lick of sense.
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Unfortunately, in this case the "fact checkers" don't deal in facts, just progressive opinion and propaganda.


Yup. And now they can do that under the guise of the government seal, and all that implies. In other words, the Dems will be able to shout down opposing viewpoints from the biggest bully pulpit of them all.

Reasonable people see the dangers of such a board. Only fools or partisan hacks pretend such dangers don't exist.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.
I doubt that it's a reaction to the sale of Twitter. It would have been planned for longer than that. These are just two stories that are in the news at the same time, and people are assuming they're connected.

The difference between now and the days of pamphleteering is that critical thinking skills haven't kept up with social media technology. We know that anyone can share a pamphlet. What's in a newspaper or on a video screen used to be more authoritative because not anyone could produce it. It had to go through an editorial process, which included fact-checking. That was already built in. It wasn't perfect, but it was a process and there were standards.

Now anyone can produce a video for thousands or millions to see, and there's no vetting process. That's fine in and of itself, but here's the catch: our brains haven't figured out that the screen lost its authority. No one goes running to their friends and says, "You have GOT to hear what some random drunk told me on the street last night! This guy has it all figured out!" But we'll share a YouTube clip from the same guy, and people will listen because it's on the same screen where they watch the news. Or we'll retweet a quote from who knows where, and people will read it because it's in the same space where they read a (virtual) paper. It takes a lot of cognitive energy to sort the wheat from the chaff, and most people won't or can't take the time.

As for abuses, it is difficult to get rid of a department, but that is rarely if ever a first resort. The more likely remedy is through the courts, as it was with the IRS example. They can handle injuries relatively quickly, on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a groundswell of voter support. In doing so they are also setting precedents that will govern the agency's conduct in the future.
I also doubt it was just the Twitter sale that was the impetus. I also doubt that this move was seriously thought through. If there is another government body that proves to be untrustworthy, this one will be in the limelight to become just that.

As to the issue of "if it's on the internet it must be true" - I really don't think that has been an issue since over a decade ago. People learn and adapt. What has happened is the lack of trust in media makes it harder to get good information, so many have resorted to getting a few sources they feel good about, even if not the most reliable. Hence talk radio for conservatives and TV shows for liberals (like The View) have become "news" sources. Traditional cable news has seen this and just followed the viewership to one side or another. The old network news (NBC, CBS, ABC) have all become much more shrill over the last 4 decades. Just watch the first minute announcing all the main headlines like they are the old paper boy selling extra editions due to a big breaking story. Make that a scared, over-dramatic paper boy.


I'm afraid the IRS has been in court many times, but likely not enough times due to protection under the law. Also, court cases with the IRS are not quickly resolved and are complex due to the laws governing it. Thant means it gets real expensive to fight the IRS (or any other government agency). The case represented in the link took 5 years to get to the first half of resolution. That's as long as it took the Nazis to get to the point of threatening war after Hitler became Chancellor. Much harm can be done before such a case can be resolved.

Also, in this case, this unit of Homeland Security needs to be squashed soon, as a first resort. It has no where good to grow its power without limiting speech. The government does not need to have anyone but the FBI, CDC, State Department, FCC, FEC, SBA, Justice Department, etc. putting out corrections and warnings on any possible foreign or domestic disinformation that falls within their purview. The experts in the know and not some central information aack-of-all-trades filtering body need to be sending out the U.S. Government viewpoint. DGA will likely be a laughingstock very soon. It will be either ineffective since it requires that the people trust it, or it will exceed its power trying to exert authority to overcome that weakness.


Good post but it's pearls before swine.

For him it's all about Covid disinformation. As long as the govt. debunks that, he's fine with such a board.

COVID and Trump have made him crazy.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

Robert Wilson said:

Sam Lowry said:

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.
Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.
I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.
What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.
Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.
If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.
Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.
Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)
Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.
Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.
I doubt that it's a reaction to the sale of Twitter. It would have been planned for longer than that. These are just two stories that are in the news at the same time, and people are assuming they're connected.

The difference between now and the days of pamphleteering is that critical thinking skills haven't kept up with social media technology. We know that anyone can share a pamphlet. What's in a newspaper or on a video screen used to be more authoritative because not anyone could produce it. It had to go through an editorial process, which included fact-checking. That was already built in. It wasn't perfect, but it was a process and there were standards.

Now anyone can produce a video for thousands or millions to see, and there's no vetting process. That's fine in and of itself, but here's the catch: our brains haven't figured out that the screen lost its authority. No one goes running to their friends and says, "You have GOT to hear what some random drunk told me on the street last night! This guy has it all figured out!" But we'll share a YouTube clip from the same guy, and people will listen because it's on the same screen where they watch the news. Or we'll retweet a quote from who knows where, and people will read it because it's in the same space where they read a (virtual) paper. It takes a lot of cognitive energy to sort the wheat from the chaff, and most people won't or can't take the time.

As for abuses, it is difficult to get rid of a department, but that is rarely if ever a first resort. The more likely remedy is through the courts, as it was with the IRS example. They can handle injuries relatively quickly, on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a groundswell of voter support. In doing so they are also setting precedents that will govern the agency's conduct in the future.
I also doubt it was just the Twitter sale that was the impetus. I also doubt that this move was seriously thought through. If there is another government body that proves to be untrustworthy, this one will be in the limelight to become just that.

As to the issue of "if it's on the internet it must be true" - I really don't think that has been an issue since over a decade ago. People learn and adapt. What has happened is the lack of trust in media makes it harder to get good information, so many have resorted to getting a few sources they feel good about, even if not the most reliable. Hence talk radio for conservatives and TV shows for liberals (like The View) have become "news" sources. Traditional cable news has seen this and just followed the viewership to one side or another. The old network news (NBC, CBS, ABC) have all become much more shrill over the last 4 decades. Just watch the first minute announcing all the main headlines like they are the old paper boy selling extra editions due to a big breaking story. Make that a scared, over-dramatic paper boy.


I'm afraid the IRS has been in court many times, but likely not enough times due to protection under the law. Also, court cases with the IRS are not quickly resolved and are complex due to the laws governing it. Thant means it gets real expensive to fight the IRS (or any other government agency). The case represented in the link took 5 years to get to the first half of resolution. That's as long as it took the Nazis to get to the point of threatening war after Hitler became Chancellor. Much harm can be done before such a case can be resolved.

Also, in this case, this unit of Homeland Security needs to be squashed soon, as a first resort. It has no where good to grow its power without limiting speech. The government does not need to have anyone but the FBI, CDC, State Department, FCC, FEC, SBA, Justice Department, etc. putting out corrections and warnings on any possible foreign or domestic disinformation that falls within their purview. The experts in the know and not some central information aack-of-all-trades filtering body need to be sending out the U.S. Government viewpoint. DGA will likely be a laughingstock very soon. It will be either ineffective since it requires that the people trust it, or it will exceed its power trying to exert authority to overcome that weakness.
"Internet must be true" and lack of trust in media are both part of it -- though of course the lack of trust is selective and often more rhetorical than real. How many times have you seen a social media post screaming "why aren't mainstream media reporting this!" accompanied by a link to a mainstream media report?

The DGB seems to be little more than a working group that helps the DHS and other agencies operate. It's hard to argue that such a thing isn't within the secretary's discretion. If it does anything that requires complex litigation, injunctions are always possible to stop too much harm from being done while the case is resolved.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Learned a long time ago that Sam is not going to admit his mind has been changed or his positions are in error, even once his positions have been thoroughly refuted or made to look ridiculous. This is but another example. He is going to die on this hill, regardless of how absurd or even un-American his position is.

I do appreciate everyone's efforts, but like I said before, pearls before swine. Best not to engage unreasonable and intellectually dishonest people.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Learned a long time ago that Sam is not going to admit his mind has been changed or his positions are in error, even once his positions have been thoroughly refuted or made to look ridiculous. This is but another example. He is going to die on this hill, regardless of how absurd or even un-American his position is.

I do appreciate everyone's efforts, but like I said before, pearls before swine. Best not to engage unreasonable and intellectually dishonest people.
He's nothing more than a troll. And a bad one at that.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Learned a long time ago that Sam is not going to admit his mind has been changed or his positions are in error, even once his positions have been thoroughly refuted or made to look ridiculous. This is but another example. He is going to die on this hill, regardless of how absurd or even un-American his position is.
Speaking of irony. Your lack of self awareness is amazing, especially on the subject of Covid
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The larger question is that the entire DHS should be dissolved.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.