(11-08-2023, 11:45 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: I mean - this all seems pretty simple.

Over a two year period of time leading up to the 2020 election - US social media was indeed used as a propaganda device by foreign governments and special interest groups.

We know this to be true. And it need not be a partisan issue.
While Russia lead a campaign to aid tRump's re-election - Iran led a campaign to undermine it.  This stuff is a threat to us all regardless of your politics. So let's put aside trying to argue whether or not censorship of propaganda was needed. Zuckerberg was unwilling to take the necessary steps without this involvement. So the Feds were forced to get involved. And, yes, tRump was in office when this happened.

Here's a declassified intelligence doc on the subject.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents...6MAR21.pdf

SO - There was indeed a ton of misinformation and disinformation making the rounds.
I saw things daily in my feed that had the typical grammatical errors common to language translating software and so did everyone I asked personally about also seeing those ads and posts.

So the DOH and other agencies rightfully began efforts to intervene and censor accordingly.

Now- fast forward a bit- and Jim Jordan and others who had been well documented as prone to posting inaccuracies on social media got caught up in the fray when some of their inaccurate posts were removed.

In the grand scheme of things - who cares?  There was a larger design at work to shield people from much more harmful election influence from those who wish us all ill will.

Is it really too much to ask of our lawmakers that they not post blatant lies on Facebook and twitter?
Sadly - I know the answer to that rhetorical question and it doesn't bode well for any of us.

I have no problem with this as an idea, but the problem is always the same: How do you police it and keep it free from political bias. Misinformation and disinformation have always been a thing. However, it happens on the left just as much as it happens on the right, yet these two sides do not have the same accountability. The left routinely uses their platforms to manipulate the masses, which is textbook disinformation. Here's a few examples of headlines that are verifiable untrue about Trump:

• CNN's Chris Cilizza accused Trump of lying about wiretapping at Trump Tower, yet there were confirmed wiretaps involving Trump Tower associates.
  
• NBC News falsely reported that Trump had wiretapped his lawyer Michael Cohen, which they later had to retract.
  
• Time magazine reported that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office on his first day, which was incorrect.
  
• The media narrative on Russian collusion was proven to be unfounded with the release of the Mueller report, which found no evidence of collusion (this is a huge one).
  
• Newsweek published a headline suggesting there was "Scientific Proof That Trump’s Hands are Too Small to Hold a Water Bottle Like a Normal Adult," which was not supported by any scientific evidence.
  

I mean, that's just few. I could fill up a whole thread if I wanted to be specific. These are just the ones that are inarguable. If I included the ones that are debatable, either because people are blindly partisan or because people think Trump just got lucky, I'd be here all week. I'm not trying to do that. I just want to know how you set up boundaries on misinformation and disinformation. Who gets to determine it. It's well known that our fact checkers are biased and partisan. How are you going to make this work in a way that doesn't disenfranchise a group? 

We can't even hold our media accountable, and you want to hold individuals accountable? We can't even hold our corporations accountable, and you want our corporations to hold us accountable? We can't even hold our government accountable, and you want our government to hold corporations accountable?

---