|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 30 2026 23:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 21:51 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 21:24 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 14:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 10:55 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:[quote] This is fun. That you I believe: [quote] That also you: [quote] spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit." That also you but from now closed topic so cant quote properly: "His first amendment right to freedom of speech was obviously not violated just because he got assaulted by a random guy. Congress/ the federal government isn't part of the assault scenario. He got assaulted and what the assaulter did is illegal; if he were found, he'd be arrested. And he should be. But as far as whether or not people agree morally with punching a Nazi in the mouth... well, let's just say that both Captain America and Indiana Jones did it too, and surely people shouldn't be surprised that he was punched. I'd rather have a dialogue with the guy than punch him, but not everyone can control their anger against incendiary, toxic people. Also, his hate wasn't directed at me, so it's harder for me to relate to the kind of anger felt by those who are targeted, systemically oppressed, and constantly viewed as inferior." Dont take me wrong, it is just that for some it may seem that first you arguing that it is good to punch a "some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit" , or taking "proactive stance" if you prefer to phrase it that way, and then encouraged people to call republicans (which I believe is 50+kk people in US) racists and fascists, and make sure to mix it up with other stuff, to make it look okay. [quote] First part: I am not here to defend Musk, just pointed out the difference between free speech, as in keeping government out of it, and free speech as in everyone can say whatever they want and everyone has to be fine with that. With the former I am in full agreement with the latter not so much. As for platforms with a lot of power I already agreed with you on that one, it is just our solutions are different. I think your stance is given away by "adopt certain standards" which I believe mean you would like to see some regulations in a style: you cant have that, you should correct that. Sad truth is that this sort of solution would give more power to government and this platforms. My solution (you can either moderate, or be accountable, but no both) takes away power from this platforms. As such I believe my solution is better (funnily enough I also think this is what everyone happen to think "my solution is better" ) Part 2: Yeah he was, but what does that matter? Everyone knew what his point was, but decided to nitpick, on quite frankly, irrelevant bullshit, if thats not arguing in bad faith I dont know what is. And yes some people did engage honestly, but their post were drowned in bunch of irrelevant stuff, so i guess goal achieved... Part 3: This one is fun: "I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning." And this specific positions, are they right or left leaning?  " And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing" So the guy who is leftist, but doesnt sign up to approved narrative is your example? Let me get this clear, guy on the left, who happened to have his own views on what left should be doing is getting a lot of flak? Surely it is not evidence of "one approved narrative"? "A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it. I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that" "Broadly" is such a useful word isnt it? Broadly speaking all animals are equal, but bear is more equal. What is your position on misinformation, disinformation, or, what is funny word used to hide inconvenient truths? Malinformation, was it? Edit: @Wombat thank you for mentioning Drone I remembered I need to answer to him, it will be separate post though. Point 1:Fair enough if that’s your position. This isn’t the position of the many I was alluding to, but it’s unfair to lump you in with those of different beliefs. There’s a reason it’s called ‘cancel culture’ and not ‘cancelled by the government’ after all. I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols. If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots. I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem. Point 2:It may seem like nitpicking, I think sometimes the details are important if an argument springs from the details. To a degree I think doubling down also just leads to unproductive loops, when perhaps the idea itself merits discussion. Which I did say at the time. Point 3:What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example. Then you’ve got a bunch of stuff I just think is wrong, but ‘agree to disagree’ wrong, and there’s no real moral component there for me. Get to category three, well that’s stuff I do think I have a more high ground on. Bumming Trump, defending something one was massively against a week ago, defending things like ICE shootings. Yeah I’ll judge folks there, but it’s not because they’re right wing. A small government guy should be as opposed to Trump and ICE as I am, to take one example. There’s also just thread dynamics. Person A comes in and just discusses things, and sure there might be friction, it’s only natural. Person B goes all out to ‘own the libs’. They might have the same actual views but Person A will be treated much better than Person B. The Person B archetype swings in, posts like trash and then complains that they’re treated as such. But the problem there is that, not broader ideology "I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols." There is couple of issues with this solution, 1st one "voluntarily" it simply means they can drop it on a whim. Second -obviously they are going to do it, it is like their wet dream, this is actually entire source of their power. This is what gives them aility to elevate opinions they like and bury ones they dont. "If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots. I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem." So you are pro regulation in this case. Agreed framework never going to happen on it, as different countries have different laws and cultures. Quatar probably wont be ok with criticizing royal family or Islam, Germany would still want to fine people for offending politicians, Starmer would have a stroke if he found out that he cant arrest people for saying we love bacon, and can you imagine liberals in US if they were suddenly told that they are going to pay fines for offending politicians (particularly orange buffoons). To be fair US response would be probably the same across the political spectrum, at east while Trump is in charge. And who would decide what is "misinformation"? Notwithstanding that todays misinformation may be truth tomorrow, would you be really happy with Trump government deciding whats misinformation?As for algorithmic funnel I agree, I simply see algorithm as a part of moderation, because this is its realistic effect. Thats why section 230 is rubbish and needs to go. On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:
Point 3:
What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example.
Why would your positions sit uneasily with your worldview? Your positions are part of your worldview, where the uneasiness comes from? Why say "my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview" rather than "my worldview" why describe positions as left/right, rather than yours? Sometimes misinformation is just misinformation, like when trump said you could cure COVID with bleach. No one is advocating for a government department of censorship. Just some regulation about the content. For example, I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice like "don't have medical professionals around when you're giving birth". Ironically, saying that trump said you could cure COVID with bleach is just misinformation. In a sense, I'm in favor of letting you spread such misinformation instead of ultimately fining you or sending you to jail for it. The grander point is that the people arguing for censorship are actually likely to run afoul of it if certain political elements get to determine the dividing line of mostly false or dangerous disinformation. He did suggest it. If you want to say "he was only joking", fine. Here is the actual quote (what you have in your link is not a quote, is two people talking about it). And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."
Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what." Accidental poisonings with bleach rose immediately after that. The article does point out that it's not a direct 1 to 1 correlation, as bleach poisoning from the fumes was already on the rise, but it did correlate with a strong increase. It is also telling that people started making calls about it. Maryland has received ‘hundreds of calls’ about the effectiveness of ingesting disinfectants to treat coronavirus, governor says I should also say that there are different ways of enforcing content control. I think that something like legislating that social media companies adjust their algorithms so misinformation is selected out, rather than spread faster, might work. In that way, if someone says something dumb, like "Haitians are eating your pets", make it so that type of content doesn't come up as a suggestion to anyone else. Of course, if they appointed you in charge of the censors, you could make that argument. But as my post says, there could be a different political party in power. One that says suggesting to scientists that they study it is not the same as telling his audience to inject bleach. Remember, you’re not guaranteed a sympathetic panel or favorable political leanings that would consider it in the best light. I gather that you ignored that aspect once and intend to do it again, but it does not serve you will to ignore and dismiss the downsides. Depends on how you write a law and how you quantify harm. Trump's statement caused a spike in people getting intoxicated with bleach, which is a quantifiable harm. It's not about opinions or political leaning if you can stick a number to it. In the eyes of the censor, your disinformation twisted the truth and caused harm (see clip). On your last post, you suggested that EndeR’s misinformation social media post be censored out so that I don’t read it, instead of arresting, jailing, or fining EndeR. That’s acceptable to you? I think I made the easy counter example of how you would be the victim of the laws you propose, but it isn’t my voice getting shut up in this situation. I say spread your disinformation and argue that it’s nothing of the kind. You are not getting my point. The threshold for banning content can't be "I disagree with this content". To introduce a law that targets harmful content you first have to define what harm means. This can be defined narrowly (e.g. medical advice that can get you killed). You then would define how harm can be quantified (e.g. number of dead babies because people listened to your free birth bullshit). If you then produce a harmful piece of content, depending on the severity I would either want the person prosecuted on one extreme end or simply the content inaccessible by algorithms on the other end. For my post to qualify, you would have to prove that me repeating the president's words verbatim and label then misinformation, that this led to quantifiable harm. If a law was written that allowed anyone to do that, I would argue that that's a badly written law. Are you sure that you're "repeating the president's words verbatim" when said "trump said you could cure COVID with bleach." I linked the video clip in context, with him asking scientists about testing UV light and some injection regime of disinfectant (unclear if still UV light). You think a censorship regime, government or social media company complying with legislation, could not argue that you have twisted his words and your posting of bleach is causing potential harm? You kinda need your uncensored voice to argue that it's a fair summary, but I think any government or company not politically aligned with you could or would censor the statement for harms and I neither read the statement nor your argument (downside of censorship!)
On March 30 2026 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Good point. Trump was able to get Stephen Colbert cancelled, despite Colbert having one of the highest-rated American late-night talk shows (and Colbert really not being even remotely incendiary). Trump is his own Department of Censorship. I think you are confusing colbert with Kimmel, here. Colbert is highly incendiary. Kimmel is generally kind, though. The "highest-rated" kind of masks the 32% decline in viewership over the last five years and 70-80% in the last 10 years. For Colbert, it was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position (50% advertising revenue decline in 6 years) I don't know if the Trump-political mess was just the convenient excuse or the motivating factor, but it's sort of like saying Colbert had the upper deck position in the Titanic.
|
On March 30 2026 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Good point. Trump was able to get Stephen Colbert cancelled, despite Colbert having one of the highest-rated American late-night talk shows (and Colbert really not being even remotely incendiary). Trump is his own Department of Censorship. I think you are confusing colbert with Kimmel, here. Colbert is highly incendiary. Kimmel is generally kind, though.
I don't perceive Colbert to be incendiary on The Late Show nowadays. He was obviously ridiculous way back in the Colbert Report days, but that was satirical and his fake persona was a Republican. Kimmel also takes plenty of pot shots at Trump, but I wouldn't consider Kimmel or Colbert to be worthy of censorship. I think both hosts are generally kind.
|
'Comedian is being incendiary by pointing out the literal facts of what the President is doing.
|
On March 30 2026 23:53 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 23:01 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 21:51 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 21:24 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 14:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 10:55 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Point 1:
Fair enough if that’s your position. This isn’t the position of the many I was alluding to, but it’s unfair to lump you in with those of different beliefs. There’s a reason it’s called ‘cancel culture’ and not ‘cancelled by the government’ after all.
I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols.
If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots.
I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem.
Point 2:
It may seem like nitpicking, I think sometimes the details are important if an argument springs from the details. To a degree I think doubling down also just leads to unproductive loops, when perhaps the idea itself merits discussion. Which I did say at the time.
Point 3:
What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example.
Then you’ve got a bunch of stuff I just think is wrong, but ‘agree to disagree’ wrong, and there’s no real moral component there for me.
Get to category three, well that’s stuff I do think I have a more high ground on. Bumming Trump, defending something one was massively against a week ago, defending things like ICE shootings.
Yeah I’ll judge folks there, but it’s not because they’re right wing. A small government guy should be as opposed to Trump and ICE as I am, to take one example.
There’s also just thread dynamics. Person A comes in and just discusses things, and sure there might be friction, it’s only natural. Person B goes all out to ‘own the libs’. They might have the same actual views but Person A will be treated much better than Person B.
The Person B archetype swings in, posts like trash and then complains that they’re treated as such. But the problem there is that, not broader ideology "I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols." There is couple of issues with this solution, 1st one "voluntarily" it simply means they can drop it on a whim. Second -obviously they are going to do it, it is like their wet dream, this is actually entire source of their power. This is what gives them aility to elevate opinions they like and bury ones they dont. "If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots. I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem." So you are pro regulation in this case. Agreed framework never going to happen on it, as different countries have different laws and cultures. Quatar probably wont be ok with criticizing royal family or Islam, Germany would still want to fine people for offending politicians, Starmer would have a stroke if he found out that he cant arrest people for saying we love bacon, and can you imagine liberals in US if they were suddenly told that they are going to pay fines for offending politicians (particularly orange buffoons). To be fair US response would be probably the same across the political spectrum, at east while Trump is in charge. And who would decide what is "misinformation"? Notwithstanding that todays misinformation may be truth tomorrow, would you be really happy with Trump government deciding whats misinformation?As for algorithmic funnel I agree, I simply see algorithm as a part of moderation, because this is its realistic effect. Thats why section 230 is rubbish and needs to go. On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:
Point 3:
What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example.
Why would your positions sit uneasily with your worldview? Your positions are part of your worldview, where the uneasiness comes from? Why say "my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview" rather than "my worldview" why describe positions as left/right, rather than yours? Sometimes misinformation is just misinformation, like when trump said you could cure COVID with bleach. No one is advocating for a government department of censorship. Just some regulation about the content. For example, I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice like "don't have medical professionals around when you're giving birth". Ironically, saying that trump said you could cure COVID with bleach is just misinformation. In a sense, I'm in favor of letting you spread such misinformation instead of ultimately fining you or sending you to jail for it. The grander point is that the people arguing for censorship are actually likely to run afoul of it if certain political elements get to determine the dividing line of mostly false or dangerous disinformation. He did suggest it. If you want to say "he was only joking", fine. Here is the actual quote (what you have in your link is not a quote, is two people talking about it). And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."
Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what." Accidental poisonings with bleach rose immediately after that. The article does point out that it's not a direct 1 to 1 correlation, as bleach poisoning from the fumes was already on the rise, but it did correlate with a strong increase. It is also telling that people started making calls about it. Maryland has received ‘hundreds of calls’ about the effectiveness of ingesting disinfectants to treat coronavirus, governor says I should also say that there are different ways of enforcing content control. I think that something like legislating that social media companies adjust their algorithms so misinformation is selected out, rather than spread faster, might work. In that way, if someone says something dumb, like "Haitians are eating your pets", make it so that type of content doesn't come up as a suggestion to anyone else. Of course, if they appointed you in charge of the censors, you could make that argument. But as my post says, there could be a different political party in power. One that says suggesting to scientists that they study it is not the same as telling his audience to inject bleach. Remember, you’re not guaranteed a sympathetic panel or favorable political leanings that would consider it in the best light. I gather that you ignored that aspect once and intend to do it again, but it does not serve you will to ignore and dismiss the downsides. Depends on how you write a law and how you quantify harm. Trump's statement caused a spike in people getting intoxicated with bleach, which is a quantifiable harm. It's not about opinions or political leaning if you can stick a number to it. In the eyes of the censor, your disinformation twisted the truth and caused harm (see clip). On your last post, you suggested that EndeR’s misinformation social media post be censored out so that I don’t read it, instead of arresting, jailing, or fining EndeR. That’s acceptable to you? I think I made the easy counter example of how you would be the victim of the laws you propose, but it isn’t my voice getting shut up in this situation. I say spread your disinformation and argue that it’s nothing of the kind. You are not getting my point. The threshold for banning content can't be "I disagree with this content". To introduce a law that targets harmful content you first have to define what harm means. This can be defined narrowly (e.g. medical advice that can get you killed). You then would define how harm can be quantified (e.g. number of dead babies because people listened to your free birth bullshit). If you then produce a harmful piece of content, depending on the severity I would either want the person prosecuted on one extreme end or simply the content inaccessible by algorithms on the other end. For my post to qualify, you would have to prove that me repeating the president's words verbatim and label then misinformation, that this led to quantifiable harm. If a law was written that allowed anyone to do that, I would argue that that's a badly written law. Are you sure that you're "repeating the president's words verbatim" when said "trump said you could cure COVID with bleach." I linked the video clip in context, with him asking scientists about testing UV light and some injection regime of disinfectant (unclear if still UV light). You think a censorship regime, government or social media company complying with legislation, could not argue that you have twisted his words and your posting of bleach is causing potential harm? You kinda need your uncensored voice to argue that it's a fair summary, but I think any government or company not politically aligned with you could or would censor the statement for harms and I neither read the statement nor your argument (downside of censorship!)
Apologies, I edited my post. Indeed, I did not repeat his words verbatim, but simply the suggestion he made. If you say to someone "we should look into that", you are implying that you think the suggestion would work, otherwise you would frame it differently. And, looking at the clip, he looks pretty self-satisfied when saying it, which looks like he feels it was a great suggestion that he came up with on the spot.
What does quantifiable harm mean to you? I don't want to misrepresent your post. Or are you simply arguing that a social media company can just imply a nebulous " this will generate quantifiable harm" threat to get your content pulled but never actually quantify the harm?
Mind you, I'm not sure I'm answering your point, because I didn't understand your post. But if what I understood is correct, then you would include a clause along the lines of "harms need to be proven in a time window of X or the content is restored" and set a reasonable time threshold.
You would also have to make a distinction between likely future potential harm of the content, and harm already caused. Ideally, you'd come up with narrow definitions for all bits of this that can't be easily gamed, but there's definitely potential for abuse, like with any law.
|
Cool, so does that mean it's OK for the government to openly censor their critics with explicit verbal threats as long as the critics are declining anyway?
|
On March 31 2026 00:03 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 23:53 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 23:01 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 21:51 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 21:24 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 14:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 10:55 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
"I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols."
There is couple of issues with this solution, 1st one "voluntarily" it simply means they can drop it on a whim. Second -obviously they are going to do it, it is like their wet dream, this is actually entire source of their power. This is what gives them aility to elevate opinions they like and bury ones they dont.
"If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots.
I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem."
So you are pro regulation in this case. Agreed framework never going to happen on it, as different countries have different laws and cultures. Quatar probably wont be ok with criticizing royal family or Islam, Germany would still want to fine people for offending politicians, Starmer would have a stroke if he found out that he cant arrest people for saying we love bacon, and can you imagine liberals in US if they were suddenly told that they are going to pay fines for offending politicians (particularly orange buffoons). To be fair US response would be probably the same across the political spectrum, at east while Trump is in charge.
And who would decide what is "misinformation"? Notwithstanding that todays misinformation may be truth tomorrow, would you be really happy with Trump government deciding whats misinformation?
As for algorithmic funnel I agree, I simply see algorithm as a part of moderation, because this is its realistic effect. Thats why section 230 is rubbish and needs to go.
[quote]
Why would your positions sit uneasily with your worldview? Your positions are part of your worldview, where the uneasiness comes from? Why say "my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview" rather than "my worldview" why describe positions as left/right, rather than yours? Sometimes misinformation is just misinformation, like when trump said you could cure COVID with bleach. No one is advocating for a government department of censorship. Just some regulation about the content. For example, I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice like "don't have medical professionals around when you're giving birth". Ironically, saying that trump said you could cure COVID with bleach is just misinformation. In a sense, I'm in favor of letting you spread such misinformation instead of ultimately fining you or sending you to jail for it. The grander point is that the people arguing for censorship are actually likely to run afoul of it if certain political elements get to determine the dividing line of mostly false or dangerous disinformation. He did suggest it. If you want to say "he was only joking", fine. Here is the actual quote (what you have in your link is not a quote, is two people talking about it). And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."
Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what." Accidental poisonings with bleach rose immediately after that. The article does point out that it's not a direct 1 to 1 correlation, as bleach poisoning from the fumes was already on the rise, but it did correlate with a strong increase. It is also telling that people started making calls about it. Maryland has received ‘hundreds of calls’ about the effectiveness of ingesting disinfectants to treat coronavirus, governor says I should also say that there are different ways of enforcing content control. I think that something like legislating that social media companies adjust their algorithms so misinformation is selected out, rather than spread faster, might work. In that way, if someone says something dumb, like "Haitians are eating your pets", make it so that type of content doesn't come up as a suggestion to anyone else. Of course, if they appointed you in charge of the censors, you could make that argument. But as my post says, there could be a different political party in power. One that says suggesting to scientists that they study it is not the same as telling his audience to inject bleach. Remember, you’re not guaranteed a sympathetic panel or favorable political leanings that would consider it in the best light. I gather that you ignored that aspect once and intend to do it again, but it does not serve you will to ignore and dismiss the downsides. Depends on how you write a law and how you quantify harm. Trump's statement caused a spike in people getting intoxicated with bleach, which is a quantifiable harm. It's not about opinions or political leaning if you can stick a number to it. In the eyes of the censor, your disinformation twisted the truth and caused harm (see clip). On your last post, you suggested that EndeR’s misinformation social media post be censored out so that I don’t read it, instead of arresting, jailing, or fining EndeR. That’s acceptable to you? I think I made the easy counter example of how you would be the victim of the laws you propose, but it isn’t my voice getting shut up in this situation. I say spread your disinformation and argue that it’s nothing of the kind. You are not getting my point. The threshold for banning content can't be "I disagree with this content". To introduce a law that targets harmful content you first have to define what harm means. This can be defined narrowly (e.g. medical advice that can get you killed). You then would define how harm can be quantified (e.g. number of dead babies because people listened to your free birth bullshit). If you then produce a harmful piece of content, depending on the severity I would either want the person prosecuted on one extreme end or simply the content inaccessible by algorithms on the other end. For my post to qualify, you would have to prove that me repeating the president's words verbatim and label then misinformation, that this led to quantifiable harm. If a law was written that allowed anyone to do that, I would argue that that's a badly written law. Are you sure that you're "repeating the president's words verbatim" when said "trump said you could cure COVID with bleach." I linked the video clip in context, with him asking scientists about testing UV light and some injection regime of disinfectant (unclear if still UV light). You think a censorship regime, government or social media company complying with legislation, could not argue that you have twisted his words and your posting of bleach is causing potential harm? You kinda need your uncensored voice to argue that it's a fair summary, but I think any government or company not politically aligned with you could or would censor the statement for harms and I neither read the statement nor your argument (downside of censorship!) Apologies, I edited my post. Indeed, I did not repeat his words verbatim, but simply the suggestion he made. If you say to someone "we should look into that", you are implying that you think the suggestion would work, otherwise you would frame it differently. And, looking at the clip, he looks pretty self-satisfied when saying it, which looks like he feels it was a great suggestion that he came up with on the spot. What does quantifiable harm mean to you? I don't want to misrepresent your post. Or are you simply arguing that a social media company can just imply a nebulous " this will generate quantifiable harm" threat to get your content pulled but never actually quantify the harm? Mind you, I'm not sure I'm answering your point, because I didn't understand your post. But if what I understood is correct, then you would include a clause along the lines of "harms need to be proven in a time window of X or the content is restored" and set a reasonable time threshold. You would also have to make a distinction between likely future potential harm of the content, and harm already caused. Ideally, you'd come up with narrow definitions for all bits of this that can't be easily gamed, but there's definitely potential for abuse, like with any law. If he didn't say bleach and you did, all it takes is a government or social media company to equate bleach with potential harm and censor you. I keep asking you to imagine government bureaucrats or social media companies not aligned with you because you can't force them to accept "'we should look into that' directed at scientific research, and possibly UV research, means he said you could cure COVID with bleach." They'll just take the first case of bleach poisoning and call that harm and censor you. Good luck marching into a government office or corporate office and saying that's not at all what you meant by censoring people based on quantifying harms. That's a major hurdle in the censorship argument: you actually need uncensored speech to argue that you shouldn't have been censored, but that speech is gone.
On March 31 2026 00:16 LightSpectra wrote:Cool, so does that mean it's OK for the government to openly censor their critics with explicit verbal threats as long as the critics are declining anyway? This doesn't sound relevant to my post. Saying "highest-rated" is like saying Colbert has the best location on the Titanic. The losses in viewership and ad revenue are just too huge, but you can tell me if you're disputing that.
|
On March 30 2026 23:53 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 30 2026 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Good point. Trump was able to get Stephen Colbert cancelled, despite Colbert having one of the highest-rated American late-night talk shows (and Colbert really not being even remotely incendiary). Trump is his own Department of Censorship. I think you are confusing colbert with Kimmel, here. Colbert is highly incendiary. Kimmel is generally kind, though. The "highest-rated" kind of masks the 32% decline in viewership over the last five years and 70-80% in the last 10 years.
That. Doesn't. Make. It. Okay. For. Trump. To. Censor. Colbert.
|
On March 30 2026 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 21:24 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 14:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 10:55 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense?
Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence. This is fun. That you I believe: On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed? That also you: On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit. spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit." That also you but from now closed topic so cant quote properly: "His first amendment right to freedom of speech was obviously not violated just because he got assaulted by a random guy. Congress/ the federal government isn't part of the assault scenario. He got assaulted and what the assaulter did is illegal; if he were found, he'd be arrested. And he should be. But as far as whether or not people agree morally with punching a Nazi in the mouth... well, let's just say that both Captain America and Indiana Jones did it too, and surely people shouldn't be surprised that he was punched. I'd rather have a dialogue with the guy than punch him, but not everyone can control their anger against incendiary, toxic people. Also, his hate wasn't directed at me, so it's harder for me to relate to the kind of anger felt by those who are targeted, systemically oppressed, and constantly viewed as inferior." Dont take me wrong, it is just that for some it may seem that first you arguing that it is good to punch a "some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit" , or taking "proactive stance" if you prefer to phrase it that way, and then encouraged people to call republicans (which I believe is 50+kk people in US) racists and fascists, and make sure to mix it up with other stuff, to make it look okay. On March 29 2026 00:35 WombaT wrote:On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It is good that you disagreeing, because it opens discussion. Now I'll try to explain where you got it wrong. Which is back to what freedom of speech means. lets go with your analogy to comedy club. Somebody makes fun of him in his club and got banned from there (depending on the advertising it is kinda shitty, however I dont recall Musk saying you can say whatever you want on Twitter you wont be banned). Now this person goes to the club on the other side of the road and keeps making fun of him, and he leaves this person alone. Doesnt send police, doesnt sue, just ignore. This is what free speech is. Private person can act over what you say, but government shouldnt be able to.
He’s said many, many similar things though, sure not those exact, exact words perhaps. There’s also a wider issue here, which is namely that some of these platforms are so large, embedded and without particularly meaningful competition that they wield a hell of a lot of potential power. Should such platforms have to adopt certain standards, or perhaps citizens across the globe should have some ‘digital rights’? Hey perhaps that is a good direction of travel, or perhaps one may not and want to let the market decide. Now that problem isn’t remotely an exclusively Musk thing, we’ve seen this play out in many different places. Just a rather obvious example of it. I mean the guy didn’t even couch some actions in rules or terms of service violations, it simply was things he personally disliked in many instances. It ain’t good fam. My concern is that many of the folks banging on about free speech and the looney left for the past 15 years have gone rather quiet lately when there’s plenty of examples of what they were complaining about, from both private actors and the state, right there front and centre. On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It really isnt. second part of your sentence simply makes you reasonable person, as only fools have no doubts. Did they? Because from what I have seen other posters for few pages feverishly argued that baal is wrong because count whatever wasn't jailed, but only fined, without realising that issue is whether police/court should get involved at all.
Baal was incorrect though. I’d agree that there’s a wider discussion that did get a bit buried in arguing that specific point. That said, it did happen and opinions did vary. I certainly recall myself and Drone arguing against state censure in this instance, possibly others did too. On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
Preconceptions? like, really? We are both on this forum long enough. from what I recall inciting violence through speech is something you are against? (my position is "direct" incitement of violence is free speech infringement I am willing to tolerate). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning. And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it. I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that First part: I am not here to defend Musk, just pointed out the difference between free speech, as in keeping government out of it, and free speech as in everyone can say whatever they want and everyone has to be fine with that. With the former I am in full agreement with the latter not so much. As for platforms with a lot of power I already agreed with you on that one, it is just our solutions are different. I think your stance is given away by "adopt certain standards" which I believe mean you would like to see some regulations in a style: you cant have that, you should correct that. Sad truth is that this sort of solution would give more power to government and this platforms. My solution (you can either moderate, or be accountable, but no both) takes away power from this platforms. As such I believe my solution is better (funnily enough I also think this is what everyone happen to think "my solution is better" ) Part 2: Yeah he was, but what does that matter? Everyone knew what his point was, but decided to nitpick, on quite frankly, irrelevant bullshit, if thats not arguing in bad faith I dont know what is. And yes some people did engage honestly, but their post were drowned in bunch of irrelevant stuff, so i guess goal achieved... Part 3: This one is fun: "I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning." And this specific positions, are they right or left leaning? " And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing" So the guy who is leftist, but doesnt sign up to approved narrative is your example? Let me get this clear, guy on the left, who happened to have his own views on what left should be doing is getting a lot of flak? Surely it is not evidence of "one approved narrative"? "A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it. I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that" "Broadly" is such a useful word isnt it? Broadly speaking all animals are equal, but bear is more equal. What is your position on misinformation, disinformation, or, what is funny word used to hide inconvenient truths? Malinformation, was it? Edit: @Wombat thank you for mentioning Drone I remembered I need to answer to him, it will be separate post though. Point 1:Fair enough if that’s your position. This isn’t the position of the many I was alluding to, but it’s unfair to lump you in with those of different beliefs. There’s a reason it’s called ‘cancel culture’ and not ‘cancelled by the government’ after all. I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols. If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots. I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem. Point 2:It may seem like nitpicking, I think sometimes the details are important if an argument springs from the details. To a degree I think doubling down also just leads to unproductive loops, when perhaps the idea itself merits discussion. Which I did say at the time. Point 3:What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example. Then you’ve got a bunch of stuff I just think is wrong, but ‘agree to disagree’ wrong, and there’s no real moral component there for me. Get to category three, well that’s stuff I do think I have a more high ground on. Bumming Trump, defending something one was massively against a week ago, defending things like ICE shootings. Yeah I’ll judge folks there, but it’s not because they’re right wing. A small government guy should be as opposed to Trump and ICE as I am, to take one example. There’s also just thread dynamics. Person A comes in and just discusses things, and sure there might be friction, it’s only natural. Person B goes all out to ‘own the libs’. They might have the same actual views but Person A will be treated much better than Person B. The Person B archetype swings in, posts like trash and then complains that they’re treated as such. But the problem there is that, not broader ideology "I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols." There is couple of issues with this solution, 1st one "voluntarily" it simply means they can drop it on a whim. Second -obviously they are going to do it, it is like their wet dream, this is actually entire source of their power. This is what gives them aility to elevate opinions they like and bury ones they dont. "If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots. I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem." So you are pro regulation in this case. Agreed framework never going to happen on it, as different countries have different laws and cultures. Quatar probably wont be ok with criticizing royal family or Islam, Germany would still want to fine people for offending politicians, Starmer would have a stroke if he found out that he cant arrest people for saying we love bacon, and can you imagine liberals in US if they were suddenly told that they are going to pay fines for offending politicians (particularly orange buffoons). To be fair US response would be probably the same across the political spectrum, at east while Trump is in charge. And who would decide what is "misinformation"? Notwithstanding that todays misinformation may be truth tomorrow, would you be really happy with Trump government deciding whats misinformation?As for algorithmic funnel I agree, I simply see algorithm as a part of moderation, because this is its realistic effect. Thats why section 230 is rubbish and needs to go. On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:
Point 3:
What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example.
Why would your positions sit uneasily with your worldview? Your positions are part of your worldview, where the uneasiness comes from? Why say "my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview" rather than "my worldview" why describe positions as left/right, rather than yours? Sometimes misinformation is just misinformation, like when trump said you could cure COVID with bleach. No one is advocating for a government department of censorship. Just some regulation about the content. For example, I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice like "don't have medical professionals around when you're giving birth". Ironically, saying that trump said you could cure COVID with bleach is just misinformation. In a sense, I'm in favor of letting you spread such misinformation instead of ultimately fining you or sending you to jail for it. The grander point is that the people arguing for censorship are actually likely to run afoul of it if certain political elements get to determine the dividing line of mostly false or dangerous disinformation. He did suggest it. If you want to say "he was only joking", fine. Here is the actual quote (what you have in your link is not a quote, is two people talking about it). And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."
Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what." Accidental poisonings with bleach rose immediately after that. The article does point out that it's not a direct 1 to 1 correlation, as bleach poisoning from the fumes was already on the rise, but it did correlate with a strong increase. It is also telling that people started making calls about it. Maryland has received ‘hundreds of calls’ about the effectiveness of ingesting disinfectants to treat coronavirus, governor says I should also say that there are different ways of enforcing content control. I think that something like legislating that social media companies adjust their algorithms so misinformation is selected out, rather than spread faster, might work. In that way, if someone says something dumb, like "Haitians are eating your pets", make it so that type of content doesn't come up as a suggestion to anyone else. Of course, if they appointed you in charge of the censors, you could make that argument. But as my post says, there could be a different political party in power. One that says suggesting to scientists that they study it is not the same as telling his audience to inject bleach. Remember, you’re not guaranteed a sympathetic panel or favorable political leanings that would consider it in the best light. I gather that you ignored that aspect once and intend to do it again, but it does not serve you will to ignore and dismiss the downsides. Depends on how you write a law and how you quantify harm. Trump's statement caused a spike in people getting intoxicated with bleach, which is a quantifiable harm. It's not about opinions or political leaning if you can stick a number to it.
This is post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And for a very demonstrable reason in this particular case, even if you think you have a strong causal chain to defend against the assertion of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Almost immediately after Trump said words CLEARLY OTHER THAN to the effect of "You should go home and inject and/or drink bleach," "journalists" and social media picked up the meme of "Drumpf literally said to drink/inject bleach." and amplified it. Whether to debunk it or not. They created it.
You've seen Inception? This is the same as saying "Don't think about rabbits." but measure it at the society level against your increase in bleach toxicities.
Besides which Trump's actual question, and the people calling Maryland and suffering toxicity, both come from a parallel underlying question people have, that Trump didn't invent, he just also happened to have. And it's an interesting one. We have antibiotics, antivirals, and antiseptics. Antiseptics clean surfaces so well. Even aerosolized ones clean entire enclosed spaces. But then why should something like MRSA exist? Like no matter how many antibiotics fail, why can't you just physically go into the body and manually disinfect every infected part of it, or rather what would it hurt to try, like as a salvage treatment? Even most people who memorized every organelle in high school biology can't actually explain why it's not possible when asked. People can say "Because duh you can't" and be right but that's relying on authority. Whether you can or not, and why you can't, is a perfectly normal question to ask, especially in the middle of what was thought would be a once in a century disastrous pandemic where people were looking for any edge possible against the disease.
Now to policy. When you find a case like this, even if it's 100% right, that you found a local increase in misinformation or "bad ideas" or whatever the label may be, taking that to mean free speech is failing is the Titanic fallacy.
Because you can't assume the entire background of our civilization is just an inevitability. The better ideas we have did not fall out of the sky. All the information that we have that has gotten better largely happened with the liberalization of expression. You can't take that for granted.
Likewise, along the way since COVID we have realized that mRNA vaccines aren't what they were cracked up to be, and that populations become healthier when they take anti-parasitic drugs regardless of what diseases they have, because people have undiagnosed parasites apparently, and that hospitals shouldn't prematurely intubate people to keep them from spreading aerosolized virus because that also increases the risk of secondary bacterial infections.
We can either live with the freedom to maybe be wrong about things or accept the authority of someone to make us all definitely wrong.
The presumption behind just stopping a bad idea from spreading is actually thought control. Like just that an idea is bad, so if other people hear it, they might also think it, and then bad things will happen. That is fucked up. We are allowed to think and be wrong about things. To control that would presume that someone knows things that are right. But people are insanely fallible is the whole point. Like that the virus came from bats with no evidence of any intermediate host despite cases well before the wet market superspreader event.
Penalizing literal direct calls for violence, okay. Penalize something because of the harms? Then communism is an illegal thought. It demonstrably leads to gulags, starvation, and mass executions. It doesn't matter the motivation of utopia, then. The harm is real and tangible and measurable. It's as illegal as homeopathy. It doesn't matter that the people who believe it "say" or "believe" it will cure something. It leads to death as people eschew real medicine for it. That logic just blows up everything.
|
On March 31 2026 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 23:53 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 30 2026 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Good point. Trump was able to get Stephen Colbert cancelled, despite Colbert having one of the highest-rated American late-night talk shows (and Colbert really not being even remotely incendiary). Trump is his own Department of Censorship. I think you are confusing colbert with Kimmel, here. Colbert is highly incendiary. Kimmel is generally kind, though. The "highest-rated" kind of masks the 32% decline in viewership over the last five years and 70-80% in the last 10 years. That. Doesn't. Make. It. Okay. For. Trump. To. Censor. Colbert. Don't. Tout. Its. Ratings. If. You. Don't. Want. To. Talk. Viewership. And. Advertising.
|
On March 31 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 30 2026 23:53 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 30 2026 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Good point. Trump was able to get Stephen Colbert cancelled, despite Colbert having one of the highest-rated American late-night talk shows (and Colbert really not being even remotely incendiary). Trump is his own Department of Censorship. I think you are confusing colbert with Kimmel, here. Colbert is highly incendiary. Kimmel is generally kind, though. The "highest-rated" kind of masks the 32% decline in viewership over the last five years and 70-80% in the last 10 years. That. Doesn't. Make. It. Okay. For. Trump. To. Censor. Colbert. Don't. Tout. Its. Ratings. If. You. Don't. Want. To. Talk. Viewership. And. Advertising.
We're talking about Trump's censorship lol.
Two bad takes in two hours? First, covering for Trump's suggestion to ingest disinfectant to cure covid after Trump publicly read on a screen that bleach kills covid (so it's not hard to figure out that he's referring to bleach when he said disinfectant). Second, covering for Trump's desire to cancel Colbert and you excusing it by focusing on Colbert's declining viewership (though we already know that the real reason is because Colbert had criticized Trump). Nice job.
|
"Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, censorship is wrong and you won't be happy if the censorship you want is used against you one day"
Okay, so the FCC threatening a TV station for airing a critic of the president is wrong, right?
"His ratings were low anyway"
|
Northern Ireland26505 Posts
If bleach is a good idea to counteract Covid is too ambiguous one can just draw the hypothetical line yet tighter no?
Print, radio televisual media did plenty fine for extended periods while having certain restrictions placed upon them in most locale in terms of disseminating knowingly false information.
Sure there are pretty considerable structural differences with social media, but it’s hardly impossible
|
On March 31 2026 01:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:On March 31 2026 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 30 2026 23:53 dyhb wrote:On March 30 2026 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 30 2026 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Good point. Trump was able to get Stephen Colbert cancelled, despite Colbert having one of the highest-rated American late-night talk shows (and Colbert really not being even remotely incendiary). Trump is his own Department of Censorship. I think you are confusing colbert with Kimmel, here. Colbert is highly incendiary. Kimmel is generally kind, though. The "highest-rated" kind of masks the 32% decline in viewership over the last five years and 70-80% in the last 10 years. That. Doesn't. Make. It. Okay. For. Trump. To. Censor. Colbert. Don't. Tout. Its. Ratings. If. You. Don't. Want. To. Talk. Viewership. And. Advertising. We're talking about Trump's censorship lol. Two bad takes in two hours? First, covering for Trump's suggestion to ingest disinfectant to cure covid after Trump publicly read on a screen that bleach kills covid (so it's not hard to figure out that he's referring to bleach when he said disinfectant). Second, covering for Trump's desire to cancel Colbert and you excusing it by focusing on Colbert's declining viewership (though we already know that the real reason is because Colbert had criticized Trump). Nice job. You said "despite Colbert having one of the highest-rated American late-night talk shows." I think that deserves additional context, don't you think?
How about you take a step back and realize I'm adding to the context without contradicting your main point. It doesn't hurt you, so don't lash out.
|
Your "additional context" was that all late night talk shows have lowered ratings because people don't buy cable anymore, not that Colbert specifically was declining. The headline to your third link is literally "Inside CBS’ ‘agonizing decision’ to cancel Colbert’s top-rated late-night show"
This is just bad faith nonsense because you won't address the actual point.
|
Besides which Trump's actual question, and the people calling Maryland and suffering toxicity, both come from a parallel underlying question people have, that Trump didn't invent, he just also happened to have. And it's an interesting one. We have antibiotics, antivirals, and antiseptics. Antiseptics clean surfaces so well. Even aerosolized ones clean entire enclosed spaces. But then why should something like MRSA exist? Like no matter how many antibiotics fail, why can't you just physically go into the body and manually disinfect every infected part of it, or rather what would it hurt to try, like as a salvage treatment? Even most people who memorized every organelle in high school biology can't actually explain why it's not possible when asked. People can say "Because duh you can't" and be right but that's relying on authority. Whether you can or not, and why you can't, is a perfectly normal question to ask, especially in the middle of what was thought would be a once in a century disastrous pandemic where people were looking for any edge possible against the disease.
Disinfectants are compounds that kill microorganisms on a solid surface but are not safe for use on the human body.
Antiseptics are compounds that kill microorganisms and are safe to use on the body. They kill pretty much anything and there is no real resistance to them.
The way they act is some kind of general (as in wide, nonspecific) interaction that microorganisms can't tolerate.
Sodium Hypochlorite (Bleach) is a small reactive molecule that reacts with biological substrates. It reacts with cell walls ripping them apart but can also penetrate inside the cell and destroy important cellular functions.
Iodine is also a small reactive molecule.
Chlorhexidine is a long molecule that binds reversibly to cell walls (and most other surfaces) impeding their function just by sticking to the cell wall in sufficient numbers. It's like pouring 4 barrels of syrup or tar oil on a person. With sufficient concentration it will destabilize the cell causing it to rupture, in sublethal concentrations it will slow down it's function considerable.
Thing is, when we say they are safe to use on humans that usually on the skin or other select organs (usually also on the outside).
Why? Because our cells have most of the things bacteria have and they absolutely react the same way to these compounds. Skin handles it, your spleen does not.
It's like asking someone why they don't just leave their car doors open in the car wash so the interior gets cleaned at the same time.
And honestly, I guess it requires about the same level of intellectual capacity to question why not to drink the highly reactive chemical used for cleaning (if I understand it correctly Trump asked the question relation to Chlorine used as a disinfectant and not an antiseptic which is even funnier because don't put disinfectants on your skin even when they are technically the same thing only with a different concentration).
In an age when not listening to medical advice is "questioning authority" I'm all for people drinking bleach to cure themselves btw. Some parts of the population genuinely needs to fuck around and find out a bit when it comes to medicine and reading things on the internet. I just feel I shouldn't have to pay for any consequences with my taxes.
|
United States43817 Posts
The entire argument is nonsensical. The problem with abuse of power isn’t the power component, it’s the abuse. Rather than tackle the abuse part they go after the power part.
These people propose that their fear of abuse of power is so great that the power cannot exist, for even any possibility of abuse is too great to risk. If abuse of power risk is probability of abuse multiplied by degree of power then they argue the only way to guarantee that the product is zero is to set the power variable at zero because humans are ultimately fallible.
But if that argument were made in good faith then it would be far more urgently relevant to judges, police, politicians, the damn army. You can’t guarantee against a military coup and so better not to have an army.
And yet these people never seem to argue that. For some reason that we have yet to identify the “even well meaning limits on speech are too dangerous because what if a future bad actor used the power maliciously” only ever seems to come out when Nazi speech is involved. To quote a prominent Nazi, “curious”.
The solution to abuse of power is social and cultural norms that prevent abuse, it isn’t to create a society in which there are no rules.
|
On March 31 2026 01:45 LightSpectra wrote:
Your "additional context" was that all late night talk shows have lowered ratings because people don't buy cable anymore, not that Colbert specifically was declining. The headline to your third link is literally "Inside CBS’ ‘agonizing decision’ to cancel Colbert’s top-rated late-night show"
This is just bad faith nonsense because you won't address the actual point. Their inside sources said it was cancelled purely upon financial reasons. You can disbelieve that part (it’s at least arguable both ways), but you should certainly know Colbert’s show was declining heavily both in terms of views and advertising. I’m agnostic on whether Trump’s bickering hastened the demise from seeking-favor or avoiding-FCC aims, or if that was just the excuse to kill a consistently declining show in terms of viewership and advertising dollars. I don’t see your need to lash out and accuse bad faith, when it puts the ratings in the proper viewership and financial context.
|
|
|
On March 31 2026 01:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 01:45 LightSpectra wrote:
Your "additional context" was that all late night talk shows have lowered ratings because people don't buy cable anymore, not that Colbert specifically was declining. The headline to your third link is literally "Inside CBS’ ‘agonizing decision’ to cancel Colbert’s top-rated late-night show"
This is just bad faith nonsense because you won't address the actual point. Their inside sources said it was cancelled purely upon financial reasons. You can disbelieve that part (it’s at least arguable both ways), but you should certainly know Colbert’s show was declining heavily both in terms of views and advertising. I’m agnostic on whether Trump’s bickering hastened the demise from seeking-favor or avoiding-FCC aims, or if that was just the excuse to kill a consistently declining show in terms of viewership and advertising dollars. I don’t see your need to lash out and accuse bad faith, when it puts the ratings in the proper viewership and financial context.
Literally none of this is relevant unless you're asserting it's OK to threaten censorship of something that was going to get canceled anyway
|
On March 31 2026 01:59 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 01:56 dyhb wrote:On March 31 2026 01:45 LightSpectra wrote:
Your "additional context" was that all late night talk shows have lowered ratings because people don't buy cable anymore, not that Colbert specifically was declining. The headline to your third link is literally "Inside CBS’ ‘agonizing decision’ to cancel Colbert’s top-rated late-night show"
This is just bad faith nonsense because you won't address the actual point. Their inside sources said it was cancelled purely upon financial reasons. You can disbelieve that part (it’s at least arguable both ways), but you should certainly know Colbert’s show was declining heavily both in terms of views and advertising. I’m agnostic on whether Trump’s bickering hastened the demise from seeking-favor or avoiding-FCC aims, or if that was just the excuse to kill a consistently declining show in terms of viewership and advertising dollars. I don’t see your need to lash out and accuse bad faith, when it puts the ratings in the proper viewership and financial context. Literally none of this is relevant unless you're asserting it's OK to threaten censorship of something that was going to get canceled anyway Citing ratings is not relevant unless you admit to consistent and sizable declines in viewership and revenues across multiple years. Once cited, it’s relevant to contextualize the ratings. I don’t care that you’re mad I brought it up, and I don’t oppose the initial broader point, so kindly don’t pretend that I do in order to go off on a crusade. You’re arguing with some construct you’ve created within your own mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
