You rang the alarm bell about this being a slippery slope that will lead to attempts to ban e2ee, but as you yourself demonstrated this is already happening, so I'm not sure how anything you've said applies to restricting false information online... and how it doesn't also apply to, say, bans on child pornography, unless you disagree with those too?
So since this is already happening, where exactly does your slippery slope objection come in? Why is this information germane to this specific argument?
Eh, people are trying to do this already by claiming that queer content in real life and on the Internet are "grooming" kids. We can push back against mis-application of laws without saying the laws themselves shouldn't exist.
I entirely disagree it's a slippery slope. We already have child pornography and anti-terrorism laws that platforms must follow, and yet we have somehow failed to fall down any further slopes (and in fact these are illegal even with e2ee communication). Yet e2ee communication and Facebook and Twitter continue to exist.
Why would adding misinformation to this list cause that to change?
Secondly, your argument can be used, exactly as you are making it, to say that child pornography and terrorist content on the Internet are fine actually. Why not simply allow its publication but tell people it's bad and not to pay attention to it?
This seems a rather naïve point of view unfortunately.
People are persuaded and misled by misinformation all the time, even relatively smart people. Correct information being available does not mean that people will be able to choose correctly between correct information and misinformation; or, if already misinformed, that they will suddenly realize they've been misled and abandon their false beliefs.
The way to combat it is not to present correct information and pray that people make an informed decision, it's to stem the spread of bad information before it can gain converts. We already do this for some information we deem simply too harmful for society (child porn, terrorism). Given, say, COVID misinformation cost thousands of lives and millions of dollars, I would say it certainly should be added to that list.
I don't understand how these questions are germane. We can and have already decided some speech is wrong to spread online and should lead to both deletion and arrest -- specifically child porn and terrorism. We can and have successfully defined what those are. What's wrong with adding misinformation and hate speech to this list? Do you really believe we'd have trouble defining those?
I certainly favor this and I hope online platforms will continue to remove misinformation and hate speech extremely vigorously.
I am also definitely okay with the government passing a law that requires online platforms to moderate themselves.
I don’t believe this impacts anyone’s freedom of speech. If you must make a Nazi website online, you are welcome to do so (assuming you can find a platform that doesn’t immediately remove it). But Facebook and Twitter should take down links and advertisements to your site, and even ban your account if you continue to talk about it.
Your freedom of speech is intact. No one is arresting you for what you are saying. But you aren’t guaranteed a platform on which to say it.
Edit: There’s just so much that’s dumb about this but what really gets my goat is: it’s “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” not “swings and arrows.”
I found it shockingly good. I was not expecting much but it wound up being fun, heartfelt, and politically relevant. Also it was chock full of both zaniness and very hot people so was a pleasure to watch. The humor was on-point, and I think a movie that takes women’s concerns and viewpoints seriously is quite welcome.
I would say its primary failing for me was on pacing. Some sections seemed to drag quite a bit longer than others. But I might revise my opinion of that on a rewatch.
Oh, also it did feel like an advertisement in parts. But, well… what can you do.
If you love someone more than your mother as a mother, then you love that person more than your mother as a mother. That's totally fine.
Many LGBTQ+ people have to create their families out of caring people that they meet and come to love and trust, because their families reject and hate them. Those bonds are as valid (and in some cases many times more valid) than bonds of mere blood.
Republicans are running the state into the ground. If they didn’t have the culture war they’d have literally nothing… it’s their only prayer for convincing people to continually vote against their own interests and for Republicans.
That said everyone seems really into this idea so I’m prepared to be proven wrong. Who knows, maybe the new men’s liberation ideology that Nalatie foretold truly is out there.
Did I say anything about an extensive, detailed investigation? Does it appear they did literally any work, even up to and including picking up the nearest telephone and calling… well, basically anyone?
(Here’s a secret, me to you; I bet they did do that and they didn’t like what they uncovered. It’s okay though, they decided not to publish it.)
Not sure what sources I consume have anything to do with the quality of the Daily Telegraph. If I got my daily news from Sesame Street, would that suddenly make the Daily Telegraph an acceptable source?
Ohhh gosh. What a tough question. They’re all masterpieces in their own way.
I think the classic is Jordan Peterson. A deft takedown and a fascinating and quick exploration of 19th and 20th century philosophy.
I’m personally a huge fan of the Aesthetic. I used to be a Justine stan but I’ve come round more to Tabby’s way of thinking.
For her longer pieces, Envy is where it’s at. Though… the Witch Trials of J. K. Rowling are also amazing if you’re involved in Harry Potter or J. Ro thoughts.
The toughest to watch outside of her early stuff is probably Tiffany Tumbles. Still really good but it’s difficult to see the plight of a right-wing woman and how respectability politics can turn us into monsters.
Share your thoughts here when you’re done! I’m excited to hear what you think!
No, bad sources do this all the time. Actual journalists from good sources do things like:
Interview people!
Check sources and their reputability!
Discover facts!
Has any of that been done here? Why do you suppose not?
Obviously the Telegraph chose to publish this story because it appeals to the political leanings of their readership, but virtually all newspapers do that to a certain degree.
Because some sources are biased, we must accept a source as massively and obviously biased as the Daily Telegraph? Take your flimsy equivocation fallacies elsewhere. We can draw a line, and that line should certainly exclude places as bad as the Daily Telegraph.
It seems you have fallen into the trap of automatically dismissing the source/article as “propaganda” because its political viewpoint differs from your own.
No... I'm dismissing it because the Daily Telegraph is a bad source and it only publishes articles to serve its own purposes, which have nothing to do with truth or facts. Its political leanings are obviously horrible and idiotic but have nothing to do with the simple fact that they are a bad source.
Why do you believe it’s factual simply from reading the complaint? The Daily Telegraph does no follow-ups, interviews, or fact-checking (what we in the business might call “journalism”). It simply reports on the complaint and cowardly allows you to draw your own conclusions.
So we must ask: why did a right-wing propaganda outlet report this so uncritically? They have a well-established lack of interest in journalism. So what purpose was served by publishing this article and in this way?
This is why I posted it’s a bad source, and this is the problem with bad sources. Even the “factual” articles they publish are purposefully misleading at best… and total misrepresentations at worst.
You rang the alarm bell about this being a slippery slope that will lead to attempts to ban e2ee, but as you yourself demonstrated this is already happening, so I'm not sure how anything you've said applies to restricting false information online... and how it doesn't also apply to, say, bans on child pornography, unless you disagree with those too?