I agree there is a big danger of slipping down the free speech slope if we fight too hard against fake news, but I also think we need to consider a (successful) campaign effort of another nation to undermine the legitimacy of our elections as an act of hostile aggression, and in times of war most people agree some measured limitation of free speech can be justified.
No, at least not yet. That’s a good point. But Facebook is a private company, so filtering content that goes against their policy need not necessarily violate the constitution, right? I don’t know the legal details, though, I could be completely wrong.
I agree there is a big danger of slipping down the free speech slope if we fight too hard against fake news, but I also think we need to consider a (successful) campaign effort of another nation to undermine the legitimacy of our elections as an act of hostile aggression,
You know, your campaign against fake news might be taken slightly more seriously if you didn’t immediately follow it up by asserting a piece of fake news as fact.
I’ve just been skimming the wiki page on Russian involvement in the US election.
SecureWorks stated that the actor group was operating from Russia on behalf of the Russian government with “moderate” confidence level
The other claims seem to just be that there was Russian propaganda. If propaganda and possible spying counts as “war” then we will always be at war, because there is always propaganda (as if the US doesn’t do the same thing!). The parallels with 1984 go without saying, but I really think that the risk of totalitarianism isn’t Trump, its people overreacting to Trump.
Also, there are similar allegations of corruption between Clinton and Saudi Arabia.
I agree there is a big danger of slipping down the free speech slope if we fight too hard against fake news, but I also think we need to consider a (successful) campaign effort of another nation to undermine the legitimacy of our elections as an act of hostile aggression, and in times of war most people agree some measured limitation of free speech can be justified.
You shouldn’t uncritically ingest all the crap the media is feeding you. It’s bad for your health.
So we are at war with Russia? War serious enough to necessitate suspending the Constitution?
No, at least not yet. That’s a good point. But Facebook is a private company, so filtering content that goes against their policy need not necessarily violate the constitution, right? I don’t know the legal details, though, I could be completely wrong.
Facebook can filter the content, yes, but we’re not discussing the legalities, we’re discussing whether this is a good idea.
All of the information submitted to Wikileaks was real. Even if it came from Russia it was nothing to do with Fake News.
You know, your campaign against fake news might be taken slightly more seriously if you didn’t immediately follow it up by asserting a piece of fake news as fact.
I’ve just been skimming the wiki page on Russian involvement in the US election.
The other claims seem to just be that there was Russian propaganda. If propaganda and possible spying counts as “war” then we will always be at war, because there is always propaganda (as if the US doesn’t do the same thing!). The parallels with 1984 go without saying, but I really think that the risk of totalitarianism isn’t Trump, its people overreacting to Trump.
Also, there are similar allegations of corruption between Clinton and Saudi Arabia.