Why don’t we call this new regulatory entity the Ministry of Truth. Sounds like a good idea. What could go wrong?
Trump out today threatening to shut down CBS for his treatment on pulling out of their interview. But again, please post some more about the Dems canceling free speech.
John Kerry apparently thinks winning elections is the solution to what he believes is disinformation. Read between the lines there, and that means he expects government is somehow the solution to the problem. If you think that solution is somehow non-regulatory I would love to hear your theory of how that would work.
Both sides saying they want to limit free speech is a huge issue. Absolutely hate the R's and the D's. Both are so full of crap. Trump is an absolute clown for wanting to shut down sites that he doesn't like and the D's are just as bad. Trying to say "well, my side isn't as bad" is just BS. Call it like it is. I know, that is too much to ask from most of this board.
But disinformation—call it both sides for the sake of discussion—and the mass proliferation of it, is a true danger to a democracy’s foundation of “free” critical speech. How do we deal with faceless disinformation bots, originating by enemy countries? The lies have become incredibly dangerous, and divisive, to our way of governance. Don’t you think some regulation is needed?
I do think getting rid of foreign faceless bots is a good thing. Can X, FB, Insta and Tik-Tok reliably get rid of bots? I would be all for that. But I am strongly against restricting what for example some of our far left and far righties on this board say daily.
It’s a huge issue, on all sides of the coin. I’d like to see a self-regulating journalism bar—like the licensure for other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, regulate whether a particular person can hold themselves out as a journalist. Anyone can what anyone wants. But to hold it out as “news”, one would need to be a certified journalist. I think that might clear up, even a little, the reliability of social media posts.
That's an interesting idea but, to succeed, the end consumers must value such an accreditation. I doubt many people think Tucker is an objective journalist yet he influences millions because he says what they want to hear.
What Kerry said: Isn't he saying that the First Amendment makes it clear that you can't eliminate misnformation about climate change. That the Democrats simply need to win elections to take actions on climate change, regardless of the misinformation. Even if you interpret that as Kerry saying the Democrats will take control of all information ... has any presidential candidate ever promised retribution against the media the way Trump has? Anyone?
Between the a video and the transcript of Kerry's comments, it is clear that Turley is a turd. I also think that anyone that propagates Turley's take is either a useful idiot or a malicious actor. Maybe the disjunction is not needed.
Why do people who frequently believe and spread disinformation on this board also seem to advocate for the rights of domestic and foreign entities to manipulate us into acting against our own interests while serving the entities'?
He did say such a thing: So what we need is to win the ground with the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes so you’re free to be able to implement change. Back to my question. When they amass enough government power to implement change, what kind of change can government implement that is non-regulatory to solve the problem of disinformation? I would be all ears to hear the theory of how the government can implement non-regulatory change to solve the disinformation problem.
Was he talking about climate change? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/02/opinion/john-kerry-first-amendment-misinformation/
Taking a single line out of context is shady when the whole statement has been made available to you. The quote “what we need is to win the ground with the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes so you’re free to be able to implement change” clearly indicates he is advocating for using democratic elections to address societal challenges, such as climate change, through governance, not through suppressing free speech or disinformation. If “change,” as your interpretation suggests, was about repressing speech, it would be inconsistent with Kerry’s next sentence: “Now obviously there are some people in our country prepared to implement change in other ways.” Do you think he is accusing the Republicans of also wanting to stifle speech but in another way? If so, for goodness sake, let @TheGator know so that he can change the thread title to "Republicans AND Democrats want to eliminate free speech". It's easy to hear what you want to hear. Don't let charlatans like Turley and the other members of Team Turd Blossom on this forum deceive you.
