Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says there needs to be more regulation of conservative news because "when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. Very clearly." pic.twitter.com/HSI5fxUDTP
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 23, 2023
Ministry of Truth
34,951 Views |
650 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by Cobretti
How does the left just ignore the facts?Cobretti said:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says there needs to be more regulation of conservative news because "when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. Very clearly." pic.twitter.com/HSI5fxUDTP
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 23, 2023
Number of shootings against trans.... 0
Number of trans shooters against Christians. 1
You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
She's just an unvarnished totalitarian. It's hilarious how much she and Marjorie Taylor Green would agree if you stripped out the words identifying which side they were on.Cobretti said:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says there needs to be more regulation of conservative news because "when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. Very clearly." pic.twitter.com/HSI5fxUDTP
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 23, 2023
That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
The US is seeking to aggressively punish an employee because he released information that proved the US gov has been spreading blatant misinformation about the Ukraine war.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.
That's what you're dealing with here. Not some honest to god fact checkers.
At some point you're gonna have to accept that we have a hostile regime occupying our government. If you think the US government is full of honest do good people, you're insanely unaware of what's going on.
Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
OsoCoreyell said:She's just an unvarnished totalitarian. It's hilarious how much she and Marjorie Taylor Green would agree if you stripped out the words identifying which side they were on.Cobretti said:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says there needs to be more regulation of conservative news because "when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. Very clearly." pic.twitter.com/HSI5fxUDTP
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 23, 2023
She is just your average millennial liberal woman.
They are all totalitarians hiding behind the idea that they are righteous engaged in fighting the forces of "racism, sexism, homophobia, and hate"
Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
A number did. I suspect your comprehension issue is you don't know what an actual conservative or conservative position is.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
It's the TDS/COVID phobia.
Unfortunately, this is indeed the case. Have a couple of over-educated millennial liberal cousins who fit this profile perfectly. Trying to engage with them on most conservative positions will result in name-calling, yelling and hysterics. One of them openly wishes death upon the rest of the conservative members of the family (she's deemed us too racist, sexist and homophobic to live), Incredibly, she's in med school.Redbrickbear said:OsoCoreyell said:She's just an unvarnished totalitarian. It's hilarious how much she and Marjorie Taylor Green would agree if you stripped out the words identifying which side they were on.Cobretti said:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says there needs to be more regulation of conservative news because "when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. Very clearly." pic.twitter.com/HSI5fxUDTP
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 23, 2023
She is just your average millennial liberal woman.
They are all totalitarians hiding behind the idea that they are righteous engaged in fighting the forces of "racism, sexism, homophobia, and hate"
I believe a large portion of these women suffer from undiagnosed mental illness.
Nope.Mothra said:A number did. I suspect your comprehension issue is you don't know what an actual conservative or conservative position is.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
It's the TDS/COVID phobia.
They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
Sam Lowry said:Nope.Mothra said:A number did. I suspect your comprehension issue is you don't know what an actual conservative or conservative position is.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
It's the TDS/COVID phobia.
Yup.
Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
You seem to oppose both.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Mothra said:Unfortunately, this is indeed the case. Have a couple of over-educated millennial liberal cousins who fit this profile perfectly. Trying to engage with them on most conservative positions will result in name-calling, yelling and hysterics. One of them openly wishes death upon the rest of the conservative members of the family (she's deemed us too racist, sexist and homophobic to live), Incredibly, she's in med school.Redbrickbear said:OsoCoreyell said:She's just an unvarnished totalitarian. It's hilarious how much she and Marjorie Taylor Green would agree if you stripped out the words identifying which side they were on.Cobretti said:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says there needs to be more regulation of conservative news because "when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. Very clearly." pic.twitter.com/HSI5fxUDTP
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 23, 2023
She is just your average millennial liberal woman.
They are all totalitarians hiding behind the idea that they are righteous engaged in fighting the forces of "racism, sexism, homophobia, and hate"
I believe a large portion of these women suffer from undiagnosed mental illness.
Imagine you've murdered your own child and then have to repress the guilt and rebuild your entire psyche around not dealing with what you've done, justifying it as if it was your right, attacking everyone and everything that reminds you that you've murdered your own child. Co-opting every pet project and cause from your group to further insulate yourself from what you've done. This makes liberals nuts. Millions and millions of homicidal lunatics full of repressed guilt and redirected rage.
So why would you want to give the govt the opportunity to silence an opposing view when they already shown the opposing view stands a good chance of being the truth?Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
LIB,MR BEARS said:So why would you want to give the govt the opportunity to silence an opposing view when they already shown the opposing view stands a good chance of being the truth?Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
Exactly. And given the collusion between the Biden admin and social media, we know that is exactly what would happen. As I said above, once that came to light one would have thought Sam would have seen the error of his ways. But he'd rather double down on stupid than admit error.
Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
Certainly there is such a thing as disinformation. The question is whether something is disinformation simply because a government agency labels it as such.
Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
How should the government respond to disinformation campaigns by foreign powers, human traffickers, or other bad actors when there are implications for national security?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
Certainly there is such a thing as disinformation. The question is whether something is disinformation simply because a government agency labels it as such.
I don't think you understand the mechanism.Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
Our government makes a false statement in which all major news corporations and media outlets aligned with government corruption all point to that statement and broadcast to the public that false statement.
We're talking about government dissent and brainwashing here.
I understand the mechanism, I just don't understand what it has to do with the DGB. They were already doing that 20 years ago, as you pointed out. Dissenting voices were also calling out the lies on non-corporate media, and there's no reason to think that wouldn't continue. Those critiques wouldn't fall in the category of disinformation as it's usually understood.Doc Holliday said:I don't think you understand the mechanism.Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
Our government makes a false statement in which all major news corporations and media outlets aligned with government corruption all point to that statement and broadcast to the public that false statement.
We're talking about government dissent and brainwashing here.
Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.