More Americans say government should take steps to restrict false information online

[C C]

More Americans now say government should take steps to restrict false information online than in 2018
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...n-in-2018/

INTRO: Amid rising concerns over misinformation online – including surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, especially vaccines – Americans are now a bit more open to the idea of the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online. And a majority of the public continues to favor technology companies taking such action, according to a new Pew Research Center survey... (MORE)

---

Government should not be the information police
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ar-AAO9ESw

INTRO: The late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson made an astute pronouncement regarding the role of government in managing the citizenry. He wrote, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." This kind of thinking has served the United States well for almost two and a half centuries.

Justice Jackson would have been shocked and saddened to see the results of a recent Pew Research Center poll which assessed public perception of the role of government in controlling false information. The poll reveals that almost half of Americans (48 percent) support the government taking action to restrict false information in the public sphere. Worse yet, those Americans are willing to yield to government information control even "if it means losing some freedom to access and publish content." (MORE)

[Syne]

The difference between a government of and for the people and a government over the people.

[stryder]

The difference between a government of and for the people and a government over the people.

It's more like down to an intergovernmental push-me pull-you. It's known that Russia has been deeply invested in fake news, and a number of other governments are attempting to take stances towards reducing such fake news. America currently sits on the fence, but which side has greener grass?

What they'd likely "compromise" with is something similar to a Consumer group. Rather than having a government enforce a particular stance, people will be able to see what the talking heads say and make an "informed" decision for themselves. The one main problem with this however is such groups are themselves not imune from infiltration and manipulation. Having a group as a voice of reason, could end up being the voice of a communist republic.

[Yazata]

Imagine Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress, then that government taking steps to take control over what it deems "false information online". (And on TV, and in the newspapers, and in university classrooms...)

Then imagine the screaming! You would be able to hear it as far away as the Moon!

And in my opinion that outrage would be justified. Just as it is today.

One of the hallmarks of today's intellectual climate, particularly among those who (falsely) term themselves "liberals", is its hypocrisy, the idea that there are two sets of rules and principles, one for them and another for us.

President Trump was widely slandered as being an "authoritarian" and even a "fascist". But he never suggested anything remotely like this. He merely advised his supporters to be distrustful the "fake news". And he was excoriated for that, he was supposedly attacking the idea of a free press, threatening the lives of journalists etc. etc. But advising skepticism about 'fake news' isn't the same thing as favoring government control over news content.

It's shit like this make it obvious who the real authoritarians are.

[Syne]

Big tech, consumer groups, etc. is all just a way of saying the elites, who supposedly know better, can make your decisions for you, and will inevitably take over any such group, just like the media, academia, etc..

[Leigha]

It's sad to me that many people dismiss any information that doesn't agree with their personal perspectives, without vetting and processing it themselves. And this is somehow being touted in our culture, as a moral strength.