The key is secrecy/transparency - whether you’re in a position to know that some piece of “news” comes from what you might or should consider a tainted source, and whether those responsible for the medium you get it through have done enough to make it clear where it comes from and what corroborative evidence there is: and learn what sources might be trustworthy, which need to be read with an eye to their shading their story to one or other political viewpoint (as most people do with tradition media) and which are just the kind of random posters on social media whose posts are simply, until proven otherwise, about as close to “news” as what’s written on a toilet wall.
You mean there’s a difference between the Daily Express and the deranged ramblings of a sad resentful pervert ?
I’m reading responses to my three-pronged approach in which you keep saying things like “without draconian new laws you aren’t going to rid western democracies of propaganda” and “is the problem the random stranger?” Any approach besides educating people you dismiss.
Which is absurd.
Of course we educate people; but that’s not the only response, any more than it’s the only response to any other sort of fraud or corruption. Nor must we find only the perfect solution: of course there will still be propaganda.
We need to:
- Educate the public.
- Initiate sanctions against state-sponsored trolls to a degree that makes such behavior unpalatable going forward.
- Hold accountable any asshole who knows about this sort of behavior and does nothing about it.
#2 will, yeah, require doing #3 first. So, to be clear, our president is probably gonna need to go to prison, or at least be impeached; and anyone else who knew about illegal interference and did nothing needs to be held accountable by existing legal structures. Mueller is pursuing #3.
#2 means sanctioning Russia for its part in this debacle.
Its worse than mere political bullshit. They weren’t simply trying to divide us, but to enrage us, set us upon one another. They would offer white people fake news about BLM coming to get your Mamma. Then when wretchedly racist white folks would react with scorn and hatred, they made sure that black folks knew about it.
They weren’t so much trying to destroy us as trying to get us to destroy each other.
“Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name…”
Propaganda can take many forms. You can’t ban people from spreading memes. It’s not going to happen. Plus with how much we interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs we don’t have any room to whine.
And this so-called Russian interference is minuscule in comparison to domestic opinion and news. The New York Times alone editorials and opinion pages were probably of higher dollar value than the Russian trolls.
All of this is a feature of democracy and free speech. Give me some concrete examples of how you deal with Rush Limbaugh, 4chan, Glen Beck, Bill Maher, Keith Olberman, Vicente Fox, etc.
Since I’ve been on these forums which I joined, in part, due to a Confederate Flsg debate I have always said that not tolerating people’s rights leads to a counterproductive outcome. As a nation, we are losing the ability to live and let live. People always have to be “right” and win an argument or enforce their point of view. That leads to polarization and hardening of views.
I was surprised that that idea was consistently misunderstood here and met with derision and vileness. I was surprised because this site seemed to have been composed of a higher than average intellect. Look how debate and conversation is handled here when the need for restraint is removed and ask yourself if society as a whole is any better?
And elucidator, Russia is doing a tiny fraction of what we do,to each other. We are the “they” in your post.
Again critical thinking skills and teaching tolerance and flexibility in thinking is the key. That’s why in these threads about does so and so trigger or offend you I’m like “no” it’s just words and I’m not one of Pavlov’s dogs.
If words had no effect on you, you wouldn’t bother to contradict me.
I didn’t say words don’t influence or impact or have no effect. I said I’m not offended or triggered. Reading for comprehension shouldn’t be so difficult.
Of course it’s not. That’s not remotely what I’m saying.
Bullshit. I “whine” about our interference in other nations, and likewise “whine” when others do it to us. If you’ve been okay with our imperialist shittiness, that’s on you, not on me.
But even if it turns someone into a hypocrite, there’s a certain position that says you can favor your own nation’s security over others. I welcome you to the internationalist movement that repudiates such nationalism if you reject it–unless you only reject it in order to protect party over country.
Commentary on history is not necessarily an endorsement.
Pasta is traditionally cooked al dente.
That’s lovely.
Perhaps you’d like to emulate Zimbabwe’s approach to internet “assholes” and “trolls”? https://www.yahoo.com/news/american-charged-subversion-zimbabwe-goes-court-103409016.html
And you honestly think Trump is going to prison?:dubious:
What an absurd thing to say.
I don’t know what’s so difficult about this. I want to know what concrete action can be done about propaganda or opinion pieces? You claim my position that in a classically liberal society not much can be done about the source is silly or wrong. I’m asking you for actions that would make a difference with regards to the source of propaganda or memes or comedy skits on SNL. Sanctions on Russia for their 100k worth of trolling or whatever does absolutely zero with regards to domestic sourced media.
And I’m not even sure on what grounds we can ban foreign opinion. Is that even constitutional?
Are you fucking with me? Be honest now, are you?
You’re right: it has nothing to do with domestic sourced media. Nor has it anything to do with the proper temperature at which to bake potatoes. I wasn’t talking about domestic sourced media or about taters, so please stop bringing up things I wasn’t talking about, unless you want to make a point about these new things yourself.
Unless you make some radical shifts in how you respond to what I say–that is, start responding to what I say, rather than to some bizarre irrelevancies that I never said–I don’t see any point in continuing.
Hey I think most rational people want a rational electorate that make decisions based upon a reasonable analysis of the facts as they can ascertain them. Propaganda and emotional rhetoric are very useful tools for manipulating the masses in a society. When you have a society with a large degree of freedom how to combat appeals to emotion and low information voters is a difficult problem. If you have any specific or even general solutions to dealing with that problem in the aggregate I’m all ears.
I am of the opinion that the source of misinformation, appeals to emotion, ridiculous rhetoric, etc cannot be managed in a free and open society. Therefore, I am of the opinion that barriers to direct democracy, as the Constitution originally intended, and doing our best to educate people and train people in critical thinking are the most effective ways to combat emotional manipulation of the populace.
See, I don’t think Russia is the issue. I think our society has some deep flaws that have had wedges driven in them for some time now. Russia just added an additional tap. A tap, btw, that I don’t think we can prevent legally or constitutionally. And even if Russia were out of the picture those taps can be provided by any of a number of sources.
So I’m asking is how do you actually do #2 and #3 in your list and will it make any difference even if you could do something about #2 and #3 in your list?
What constitutional principle would prevent us from passing a law differentiating between free political speech from Americans and paid political propaganda from non-Americans?
I mean, there are obvious logistical and practical difficulties in investigating and enforcing such a law, but you seem to be saying that it would be unconstitutional by its very nature, which I do not believe to be true.
I’m a little hung up on the phrase “illegal interference”. Did Russians break a law by posting on Facebook?
My understanding is that the question isn’t completely settled–Mueller’s probe is gonna help–but right now it’s looking likely.
1st amendment seems to be the obstacle. I know there is a movement to demonize the 1st but hopefully the US isn’t that lost.
We probably need a real constitutional lawyer here, but I don’t believe the 1st amendment does (or should) forbid distinguishing between voluntary speech of American citizens and paid speech of foreign nationals, particularly when it comes to politics.
(Certainly similar is the fact that it’s illegal for foreign nationals to contribute money to a political campaign, and money, as we know, is speech.)