Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

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

#1
C C Offline
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)
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
The difference between a government of and for the people and a government over the people.
Reply
#3
stryder Offline
(Sep 6, 2021 10:29 PM)Syne Wrote: 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.
Reply
#4
Yazata Offline
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.
Reply
#5
Syne Offline
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..
Reply
#6
Leigha Offline
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. Confused
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  (UK) Hate speech detection shows greater online abuse for MPs from BAME backgrounds C C 0 74 Sep 17, 2021 02:02 AM
Last Post: C C
  Statistics say large pandemics are more likely than we thought C C 0 76 Aug 24, 2021 08:24 PM
Last Post: C C
  Communication researcher shows free will is key to combat online extremism C C 1 151 Apr 17, 2021 07:42 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Children learned ‘little or nothing’ during school closures, despite online learning C C 0 129 Apr 8, 2021 06:30 PM
Last Post: C C
  Emerging ebola-like virus in Bolivia spreads between humans? (information evaluation) C C 0 133 Nov 18, 2020 08:14 PM
Last Post: C C
  Information and consciousness zhangjinyuan 0 124 Aug 4, 2020 10:15 AM
Last Post: zhangjinyuan
  You create your own false information, study finds C C 4 302 Dec 17, 2019 10:08 PM
Last Post: Leigha
  What will the U.S. government do with 1.4 billion pounds of cheese? C C 1 363 Jan 29, 2019 04:46 AM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn
  Survey: Americans want more action on climate change C C 1 551 Jul 18, 2018 04:59 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Information Series C C 2 729 Mar 31, 2015 03:35 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)