pixxelkick

Disinformation is not the same as Misinformation mate.

It's critical to know the difference.

Who determines what is disinformation?

A jury, for a given case

Who determines that the information is endangering lives?

A jury, for a given case

If Trump wins the election do you want him determining these things?

I wouldn't put it past him to try and do that, knowing him.

But that's not how laws work. Determining if a given case is or is not disinformation would be up to a jury to deliberate, based on facts presented by the lawyers.

As that's how the justice system works. Or us supposed to at least.

And yes, proving it is disinformation is super hard, so the prosecutor must have a pretty iron tight case. You'd likely need witnesses that can attest to the defendant outright admitting to the act, or their behaviors that signal intent, or evidence on their devices, etc.

This is exactly how Libel and Slander / Defamation cases work right now, you have to prove the defendant knew they were lying and or making a story up intentionally which is incredibly hard, cuz the dependant can just go "I really thought that was the truth!"

For example in the Heard v Depp case, they had to pull evidence of her doctoring photos and using makeup to really sell the case and win the jury over.

So it's a huge gap to cross...

But...

If you do cross it, I believe the penalty for it should be pretty severe. Especially if the defendant was:

1. Endangering people's lives with bad advice And/Or
2. Posing as an expert without actually being one

IE those people that dress up like a doctor or nurse or etc and then sell extremely bullshit stuff on social media. That should straight up result in some prison time if they gave out genuinely harmful disinformation.

When they lead to harm, they do indeed end.

People often forget the right to free speech isn't prioritized over other human rights in pretty kych every first world country.

Otherwise stuff like Libel and Slander wouldn't make sense legally. As well as hate speech laws.

Your right to free speech comes after peoples rights to safety from harm, and how that's worded varies country by country, but feel free to Google up on it for your specific case.

It's why stuff like advertising laws, misinformation and disinformation laws, etc can work too.

Free speech isn't right #1, which some people just can't seem to wrap their head around I guess. This isn't even new, it's been like that for ages.

How do you think snake oil salesmen could be prosecuted if they were allowed to just say whatever they want?

Why do you think it's possible to have legal repercussions for threatening to shoot up a school, or bomb a plane?

I believe disinformation (not misinformation) that endangered lives should be illegal, yes.

If someone posts a video that purposefully tells people to do something that endangers lives and makes it look good/safe, that person should face penalties of fines or jail time functional of how dangerous their recommendation was.

As for the laptop, I'm not dismissing anything.

It's 100% an entirely unrelated anecdote that was mentioned as a totally seperate and discrete event in the letter, that has nothing to do with the headline.

The article used vague wording to try and jumble the two seperate events together and make it sound like they were one event that occurred, which us extremely shitty journalism.

Stop falling for such obvious bullshit and go read the original source.

I have no issue with governments cracking down on disinformation. It's a huge problem and should carry extremely heavy penalties if it causes harm.

The content in question?

COVID19 disinformation that was getting people killed.

The hunter Biden laptop thing is a secondary tied in unrelated cliff note that has nothing to do with the heading.

But "government pressures social media platform to crack down on COVID19 disinformation spreading" doesn't have that catchy ring to it to get those clicks now does it.

It's heavily because you call out to your SO a lot, and their full name is a mouthful.

Typically words like "babe", "hun", etc are the lowest effort pet name. The "b" percussive is one of the easiest to pronounce.

Usually this is simply to make communication faster and easier, "hun" is way faster to say than whatever their full name is.

This becomes do commonplace that after being together for many years, their full name is reserved for emergencies.

Like if you cut yourself or are hurt or whatever, you instinctually use their full name to grab their attention and alert them. (People alert to their full name way easier and can hear it better)

This results in producing an alarm "wtf?" response when you use it casually, it makes them whip their head up and their brain goes "is something wrong?"

Then when they realize the situation is fine, it becomes a sort of "you spooked me for nothing! Don't!" result.

You effectively reserve the full name only when you are trying to get their attention.

Dunno why ppl are down voting you, this is 100% the way.

Architecture as code is amazing, being able to completely wipe your server, re-install fresh, and turn it on and it goes right back to how it was is awesome.

GitOps version controlled architecture is easy to maintain, easy to rollback, and easy to modify.

I use k8s for my entire homelab, it has some initial learning curve but once you "get it" and have working configs on github, it becomes so trivial to add more stuff to it, scale it up, etc.

Meh, I never used the app, I just set the temp on it when I turned it on since it's, you know, right there in my hands...

I dont think I even have the app on my phone

Only if you vacuum seal, you dont have to.

You can use re-useable silicone bags

only 17 percent solely involve rifles of any variety.

Imagine having enough shootings per year in your country you can discuss the percents of what guns are used for your weekly massacres so casually.

Only in the US.

Why is it that blatantly lying about your political opponent and actively spreading clear disinformation that is easily reputable isn't penalized?

And I don't want like "cuz capitalism" zero effort responses, I'm wanting to know from an actual legal complexity standpoint what would go wrong if this was made illegal.

The fact it's so clearly provably as a false claim by countless directions, it should be an open and shut "you spread obvious disinformation" and at least a notable slap on the wrist should occur each time.

Why can a candidate just go and openly lie and say whatever without penalty, legally? Shouldn't this be under something like Libel, defamation, etc?

Shouldn't Kamala's crew be able to take Trump to court right now for defamation?

They aren't getting rid of chromecast, the title is clickbait.