Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
What constitutes as "controlling public discourse"?
Exactly what it says.

And how is fact-checking in opposition to freedom of speech?
Because speech, discourse, is being manipulated in order to keep people from talking about (or believing) what other people don't want them talk about or believe. It's not removing content outright, it's more insidious and subtle. It's abusing loopholes.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
What constitutes as "controlling public discourse"?

And how is fact-checking in opposition to freedom of speech?
If i quote you, but add a little "umm, ackshuly" addendum to it, your speech remains intact. It's still there, for everyone to see it. And the "fact check" can as easily be ignored by everyone.
When people like him are talking about fact checking as censorship, what they're really trying to say is that they believe they have the right to lie and get away with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
906
980
98
Country
Poland
Exactly what it says.
By whom then?
Is a president, for example, head of the state, tweeting that he's about to pull his country from WHO "controlling public discourse" or not?


Because speech, discourse, is being manipulated in order to keep people from talking about (or believing) what other people don't want them talk about or believe. It's not removing content outright, it's more insidious and subtle. It's abusing loopholes.
Concrete examples, please. How it's more insidious? It seems pretty overt - adding a link, or addendum next to a statement. It doesn't censor the content, it doesn't alter it, it doesn't even hide and flag it. It's still there, in the open. It's technically no different that what we do here on this forum, quoting someone's post and arguing with it.
And furthermore, not only people are free to ignore "fact checks", but they already do. Look at how many disagree with whatever Snopes does. How would twitter be different?
 
Last edited:

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
Pretty much all this stuff starts small, if you can nip it in the bud, like with FACT CHECKING, then you might be able to prevent it from growing and becoming a major issue.
Yeah, and that's dangerous. Having the power to stop "subversives" and "deplorables" from ruining your carefully crafted narrative... Squash those pesky rebellions before they even begin by conditioning people to view those who you disapprove of as crackpot conspiracy theorists, or worse.

According to this the two most prominant anti-vaxxer facebook groups claim 150,000 and 53,000 members respectively.

But they control the conversation if no one is willing to fact check them, that is just how things work.
No, they control the conversation only in their facebook groups. Anywhere else, they get ridiculed, especially on reddit and twitter.

I asked to see a tweet from an anti-vaxxer that had over a thousand likes, and wasn't swarmed with ridicule in the replies. I don't think you'll be able to find one. What normally happens is that the tweets are passed around and made fun of. If anti-vaxxers controlled the conversation, this wouldn't happen.

Because you are actively saying that you don't give credence to experts or really anything
No, I'm not. I'm saying I don't trust any organization with the power to determine what is true and what is false.

Especially when we are talking about something complicated, its really easy for someone to lie to you when you only have so much knowledge of how something works.
Okay, so you see the danger. Great.

Here's the piece I think you're missing: Fact-checkers can lie to you. ANYBODY can lie to you. The more power you give to someone to tell you the truth, the more power they have to mislead you with a lie.

Giving fact-checkers complete authority over what is or isn't true ALSO gives them complete authority to lie to you with impunity. You know this, because you recognize the danger in giving this power to Nazis, or China, or Russia, or Trump, or your local auto-shop.
 
Last edited:

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
When people like him are talking about fact checking as censorship, what they're really trying to say is that they believe they have the right to lie and get away with it.
EXACTLY. For some strange reason they seem to think that calling an outright LIE an alternative fact it somehow is no longer a lie or something and how DARE anyone point out the truth because the truth would be oppressive and somehow censorship when that is not even the definition of the word but they think they can redefine words like they redefine facts so it doesn't matter what anything means anyways regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
By whom then?
Is a president, for example, head of the state, tweeting that he's about to pull hos country from WHO "controlling public discourse" or not?
By anyone with the means to do so.
And yes, your example fits.

Concrete examples, please.
Posts #249 and #252 contain examples.

And then there's this:

Under Methods:
Undermine public opinion: One of the primary ways the FBI targeted organizations was by challenging their reputations in the community and denying them a platform to gain legitimacy. Hoover specifically designed programs to block leaders from "spreading their philosophy publicly or through the communications media". Furthermore, the organization created and controlled negative media meant to undermine black power organizations. For instance, they oversaw the creation of "documentaries" skillfully edited to paint the Black Panther Party as aggressive, and false newspapers that spread misinformation about party members. The ability of the FBI to create distrust within and between revolutionary organizations tainted their public image and weakened chances at unity and public support.
I wonder what the Fact Checkers of MLK's day would be saying about him...
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
if you can nip it in the bud, like with FACT CHECKING, then you might be able to prevent it from growing and becoming a major issue.
Oh, by the way, I read something in that Wikipedia article above that reminded me of what you said:

"Hoover ordered preemptive action "to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential for violence.""

That was his goal... for his illegal operation aimed at discrediting and destroying his political and ideological opponents.

Gotta watch out for those "good intentions", I hear the road to hell is paved with 'em.
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
By anyone with the means to do so.
And yes, your example fits.



Posts #249 and #252 contain examples.

And then there's this:

Under Methods:


I wonder what the Fact Checkers of MLK's day would be saying about him...
Wait... are you claiming that the attacks on MLK were the fault of the fact checkers?

I detest a lot of the media during that era. They were very good at virtue signalling, Lying, cancelling people, destroying lives and controlled the public discourse far more than any faction today. But not knowing that the secret police is fabricating evidence Is hard because... you know, the police was secret.

Sure, they should get some of the blame but maybe way more of the blame should go to the secret police, also know as the FBI. Like, I don’t blame Contra on the journalists. I do blame them for not bothering to dig into the government and believing the government lies. It’s much harder to find the truth with untruthful people.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
Wait... are you claiming that the attacks on MLK were the fault of the fact checkers?
I'm not claiming anything. But we know that MLK was one of the FBI's targets. Subverting his message with FBI-funded or manipulated "fact-checkers" that claim he's a dangerous and violent radical would be an effective tactic, don't you think?

Like, I don’t blame Contra on the journalists.
You don't have to blame them. You can think that they were just manipulated by the credible-looking lies that the FBI fed them. That's exactly why the power to declare what is or isn't a fact is so dangerous. You just have to manipulate the right people, and you have your very own propaganda machine.

Do you think that the "fact-checkers" today are any less prone to manipulation than the "fact-checkers" of MLK's day?
You think that, in 50 years, we won't uncover similar illegal operations that reveal how events from our generation have been manipulated?
That would be "extremely dangerous to our democracy"
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
EXACTLY. For some strange reason they seem to think that calling an outright LIE an alternative fact it somehow is no longer a lie or something and how DARE anyone point out the truth because the truth would be oppressive and somehow censorship when that is not even the definition of the word but they think they can redefine words like they redefine facts so it doesn't matter what anything means anyways regardless.
The trend I notice over and over again is this idea that they can will facts into being, or conversely, deny them an existence. Literally every time I tried confronting an anti-trans bigot with the fact that multiple cultures around the world have acknowledged and accepted trans people for centuries, their response amounted to a handful of excuses about why those cultures don't count, biological essentialist talking points and most ominously the refrain that because these cutlures and populations were such small minorities of the global community, what they wanted was of no importance. The message was clear. It doesn't matter that the facts disagree with them. They believe they can decide what the facts are based on their feelings and then impose them on everyone else. Of course they keep accusing everybody else of trying to impose tyranny of the majority: it's what they're trying to accomplish and they don't want someone else to beat them to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Wait... are you claiming that the attacks on MLK were the fault of the fact checkers?
Wake up, man! Haven't you ever thought about the newspaper obituaries? They just print this thing, and everyone agrees that person is dead. And yet, Elvis Presley appears in the alternative news regularly. But if you tell people about this, they laugh at you and say Elvis is dead. Why? Because it was in the mainstream media. They printed an obituary. And everyone just believed these so-called fact checkers! Now the King of Rock and Roll is forced to live as a ghost! Do you see what you've done in your sheeple-ness? Do you understand the power of cancel culture that is being wielded here? Don't be surprised if the next time you say something untoward about Wolf Blitzer, CNN will run a segment all about how your name is and always has been Percival Pitstains.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
I'm sorry, but I've spent about 15 minutes here trying to work out what this line of argument over the last few pages of the thread is really about and where it's trying to go, and I'm pretty much coming up blank. It seems to be a list of truisms with nebulous arguments and no apparent aim.

Arguably, of course, it therefore feels a bit like media manipulation: a load of stuff that eats up people's time and consideration that never gets them anywhere useful.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I'm not claiming anything. But we know that MLK was one of the FBI's targets. Subverting his message with FBI-funded or manipulated "fact-checkers" that claim he's a dangerous and violent radical would be an effective tactic, don't you think?



You don't have to blame them. You can think that they were just manipulated by the credible-looking lies that the FBI fed them. That's exactly why the power to declare what is or isn't a fact is so dangerous. You just have to manipulate the right people, and you have your very own propaganda machine.

Do you think that the "fact-checkers" today are any less prone to manipulation than the "fact-checkers" of MLK's day?
You think that, in 50 years, we won't uncover similar illegal operations that reveal how events from our generation have been manipulated?
That would be "extremely dangerous to our democracy"
How about we do it this way. What do you think you want from these probes into social media?
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
How about we do it this way. What do you think you want from these probes into social media?
For example, one of the things Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit do is manipulate what is "Trending". That normally means that a lot of people are talking about a subject.

But the companies manipulate it by deciding that the subject doesn't deserve space on their "Trending" page, so they remove it, hiding the discussion.

I remember when a pro-Trump sub would regularly get to the front page of Reddit. Then they changed the rules and how Reddit worked to stop that from happening. They put brand-new restrictions on that one subreddit, just to make it so that they were less visible. They effectively silenced the sub from being seen by anyone who wasn't already subscribed, while pro-bernie and anti-trump subreddits still reach the front on a daily basis.

In a perfect world, things like that wouldn't be happen.
 
Last edited:

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
For example, one of the things Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit do is manipulate what is "Trending". That normally means that a lot of people are talking about a subject. I remember when a pro-Trump sub would regularly get to the front page of Reddit...
Yeah, that sort of thing was really annoying. I would get a ton of "recommended" videos on YouTube from US alt-right talking heads despite not being American, right wing, or watching that sort of thing to see what those mouth-breathers were on about. Thank god they fixed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
1,118
1,442
118
Country
United States
So, what's your point? That Trump is doing wrong? That's unrelated to my point that controlling public discourse is dangerous.
... If your point is about controlling public discourse is dangerous, you should be as angry as Trump for trying to sign an order to erode legal protections that are the lifeblood to companies like Twitter. They would either be forced to regulate by the created governmental guidelines to keep in business and not sued every twenty four hours, or they would have to shut down. Which does a lot more to control public discourse than putting up a fact check.

Especially if a proposed guideline was, let's say, limit badmouthing of the president. Which I wouldn't put past someone as thin-skinned as him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worgen

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
... If your point is about controlling public discourse is dangerous, you should be as angry as Trump for trying to sign an order to erode legal protections that are the lifeblood to companies like Twitter. They would either be forced to regulate by the created governmental guidelines to keep in business and not sued every twenty four hours, or they would have to shut down. Which does a lot more to control public discourse than putting up a fact check.

Especially if a proposed guideline was, let's say, limit badmouthing of the president. Which I wouldn't put past someone as thin-skinned as him.
It's almost like the argument is just an incoherent mess of talking points trying to justify the desire to lie to people and never be held accountable for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worgen

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
... If your point is about controlling public discourse is dangerous, you should be as angry as Trump for trying to sign an order to erode legal protections that are the lifeblood to companies like Twitter.
I don't agree with your summary of events, but that's beside the point.

If companies aren't playing by the rules and are trying to manipulate and control public discourse, then maybe they don't deserve to have those legal protections. Maybe the law needs to be updated to close the loophole that these companies exploit.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
It's almost like the argument is just an incoherent mess of talking points trying to justify the desire to lie to people and never be held accountable for it.
It's almost as if the people who disagree with me WANT to be told what to think by corporations and governments, and WANT to enable them to control public discourse.


And what "rules" are they not playing by, precisely?
I don't think there are currently any laws against manipulating public discourse. Seems pretty unethical though.

Maybe by pushing a certain viewpoint and hiding others, they are acting as a publisher instead of a platform?

Would COININTELPRO be any less illegal if a private corporation did it? I dunno.
 
Last edited: