All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[worstblogever]

Who gets to make the distinction?

It would have to be the moderators promoting a safe community.

I would feel that would be perhaps a big ask considering we're watching a former moderator argue why it's acceptable and not a toxic environment for people to spread known falsehoods and conspiracy theories for political purposes in spite of the very recent American history that shows why that's not the case. And then when called out for it, try a rubber/glue method to accuse their political opposite numbers of doing the same, without establishing a single actual conspiracy theory.

It's especially sad that this same individual also likes to dismiss the arguments of others by claiming they're in "bad faith", as they argue in favor of the worst faith arguments being an acceptable part of discourse.

[Jack Dracula]

Politely...

That is where the hitch is.

If so much as a single person that turns up in this thread has been convinced?

I have seen right around "Nothing..." that would reflect that reality.

Past that...

I tend to doubt that anyone -

- First, finds this board to start with. It's a pretty big interweb, and the usual numbers don't really reflect that this is one of it's "Hot..." spots. Not bad, mind you. Just the reality of things.

- Second, that someone who has found this place even bothers with this particular thread. It is not exactly the most welcoming thread to ever grace the interwebs. Never mind that "Politics.." ain't some folks cup of tea. Never mind the clear lack of fresh faces.

- Third, the idea that someone gets past those first two and even bothers with the posting in question.

- Fourth, Not only did they bother with that posting. They apparently didn't even bother with anyone else's posts. Because the actual reality of things has been laid out rather clearly in quite a few of them.

While I guess all four of those things could happen in some kooked out "Longshot..." scenario?

I don't think that it is even remotely realistic to buy into that it is actually taking place. Never mind that folks need to be saved from that nonsense in a thread where folks have pointed out that it is nonsense rather clearly.

I imagine comments like this have been pretty common on the internet over the last few years.

I'd argue that ideas and attitudes are infectious.
For example, several pages back on this thread, a person commented they suspected Biden was experiencing the negative cognitive effects of old age and may not even be in control of his administration. I'd wager they didn't come by that idea on their own but heard or read it elsewhere and brought it here to express it. A few other people chimed in agreement confirming the first person's idea and having it introduced and reinforced and in their own minds. They also spread the idea to others here, some of whom may have had preconceived suspicions which were then further reinforced. All of those people then very possibly took the idea to other social media platforms.

Do you see where I'm going? That's how ideas and attitudes spread through society. Person to person in seemingly innocent comments.

I'll also admit that I'm as responsible for this as anyone else.

First, there was plenty of abuse of free speech in East Germany.

However, there is a specific historical context to bans on Holocaust denialism in Germany, coming from the policy of Denazification in the aftermath of World War 2.

It's a different situation to create that kind of ban in the United States right now. Creating an exception to Freedom of Speech does allow people you don't like to create similar exceptions going forward.

* Edit- There were some ridiculous legal decisions.

The video game Wolfenstein was banned in Germany for twenty years because it includes Nazi imagery. It is a first person shooter in which Nazis are shot.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/...n-video-games/

The laws have also been used to prosecute anti-fascists who used Nazi imagery in ways that were directed against national-socialist endeavors. The courts eventually ruled in favor of the anti-fascists but it took a few years.

There have been weird stories that don't involve Naxi imagery. A comedian was prosecuted for mocking the President of Turkey.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ish-president/

Because of America's robust freedom of speech, should Trump win again, we'll have a lot to worry about, but at least he and his next Attorney General won't have this tool to go after critics.

Ah, the Slippery Slope argument. A long-time favorite of conservatives who want to ensure little to no societal progress is ever made.

Every step forward is on a slippery slope.

[Malvolio]

It would have to be the moderators promoting a safe community.

I would feel that would be perhaps a big ask considering we're watching a former moderator argue why it's acceptable and not a toxic environment for people to spread known falsehoods and conspiracy theories for political purposes in spite of the very recent American history that shows why that's not the case. And then when called out for it, try a rubber/glue method to accuse their political opposite numbers of doing the same, without establishing a single actual conspiracy theory.

It's especially sad that this same individual also likes to dismiss the arguments of others by claiming they're in "bad faith", as they argue in favor of the worst faith arguments being an acceptable part of discourse.

In fact, it took someone on the left to even mention the existence of liberals who spout 9/11 truther conspiracies. However, that's mostly people on the furthest fringes of the left and I haven't heard of a single liberal or Democrat 9/11 truther being elected to public office. There are plenty of Q-Anon believers who are now in state and local offices and even a few in the US Congress.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, as well as 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day”posted profiles of U.S. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, whose influence behind the scenes in Republican politics began back during the Bush administration, as he kept getting appointments and promotions that smelled of the good ol' boy nepotism that Dubya's time in the White House was known for. With some help from a big endorsement from conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin, Sasse stormed to the head of the GOP Primary, and easily won office in a mid-term election year in 2014. This in spite of the fact that he wants to ban all abortion and most forms of birth control, because life begins at conception and is not just, as he puts it, "a blob of cells", that he believes that "if the Affordable Care Act lives, America as we know it will die", that he believes the "religious beliefs" of an organization like Hobby Lobby should not be violated so they can make healthcare decisions or citizens, that we should ban same sex marriage, and in his weirdest belief, that the U.S. Capitol should be moved to Lincoln, Nebraska. Since taking office, Sen. Sasse has spent his time trying to defend the 2nd Amendment rights of suspected terrorists that we don't even trust to get on a plane, trying to strip funding from Planned Parenthood over the fake "sting" video produced by the anti-abortion group the Center for Medical Progress, and undermining U.S. diplomacy by being one of the "#47 Traitors" who sent a letter to the leaders of Iran, hoping to sabotage the nuclear treaty being negotiated by the Obama administration.

Now, over the past few years, Sen. Sasse seems like one of the more sane members of the GOP, what with how he announced he would not be attending the 2016 Republican National Convention by saying he would "rather take his kids to watch some dumpster fires", and repeatedly criticizing Donald Trump throughout his administration, we’ll note that Sasse still voted for every single member of the Trump “Cabinet of Horrors”, voted to put Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, voted for the “skinny repeal” of the Affordable Care Act, and voted for the atrocious GOP tax plan.

It’s not words that count, Senator, it’s actions. And what we’re seeing is you’re consistently acting against the interests of the American people. We’ll continue monitoring the young Senator, and eagerly await the moment where he starts voting like the moderate he pretends to be. He’s even been called out for his hypocrisy on things as simple as a government employee (say Ivanka Trump versus Hillary Clinton) using a private e-mail for government business when he blunders onto the Late Show with Stephen Colbert (who is a canny interviewer, frankly).

Oh, and not for nothing, Ben Sasse was caught on audio criticizing Donald Trump in October of 2020, only days before the election, telling constituents that Trump "kisses dictators' butts" and has "flirted with white supremacists." He’s got the Nebraska GOP rebuking him for having voted to impeach Donald Trump for his failed coup attempt that resulted in an attack on the Capitol, and they are also non-plussed that he voted to have the attack investigated.

Ben Sasse only has that minimal backbone because he’s not going to face consequences in his next re-election until WAY down the line in 2026. because his Democratic opponent was Chris Janicek, who the Democratic Party nominated for office and discovered too late, was a creep not fit for office.

Ben Sasse was thus been awarded another six years in office, and went right back to work denying the American people any stimulus aid they might need during the Covid-19 pandemic. Excuse us, we need to go spend the rest of the day banging our head against the wall.

[Mister Mets]

Why I agree it is problematic here in the US because of the First Amendment, this is just a ludicrous statement by you Mets, you know they mean West and the current Germany.

If we're discussing the broad topic of German laws over the past few decades, it does seem relevant to note that 16,000,000 Germans (roughly a fifth of the German population) lived in a totalitarian state until 1990.

It also shows one consequence of a lack of robust free speech protections.

Also in the American Confederacy.

I won't dispute this point.

There were also major free speech abuses in the antebellum South. It was illegal to advocate for abolition. The understanding at the time was that the first amendment didn't protect against the states. This would change with the passage of the 14th amendment.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...nd-free-speech

East Germany?

Did it hurt to stretch that far?

Come on man, why not just say that your statement was wrong? That there hasn't been rampant misuse and repression of the people of Germany over banning the ability to publicly deny the Holocaust existed?

While it's true that I don't see similar bans being enacted here in the states any time soon, to pretend it hasn't worked elsewhere is just dishonest.

My statement wasn't wrong.

Even if you dismiss East Germany as irrelevant to Germany in the last few decades, I gave examples of ridiculous restrictions on speech in Germany. If you want to argue that prosecuting antifascists for using Nazi imagery or comedians for mocking foreign leaders isn't too bad, it still doesn't disprove my point "Making it illegal would be quite problematic as that power can set a precedent and be abused" as a change to freedom of speech laws right now would occur in a different context than post-World War 2 Germany.

The ability to ban Holocaust denialism now would poke a hole in free speech protections. It sets a potential precedent for Trump and his next Attorney General.

[thwhtGuardian]

If we're discussing the broad topic of German laws over the past few decades, it does seem relevant to note that 16,000,000 Germans (roughly a fifth of the German population) lived in a totalitarian state until 1990.

It also shows one consequence of a lack of robust free speech protections.

I won't dispute this point.

There were also major free speech abuses in the antebellum South. It was illegal to advocate for abolition. The understanding at the time was that the first amendment didn't protect against the states. This would change with the passage of the 14th amendment.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...nd-free-speech

My statement wasn't wrong.

Even if you dismiss East Germany as irrelevant to Germany in the last few decades, I gave examples of ridiculous restrictions on speech in Germany. If you want to argue that prosecuting antifascists for using Nazi imagery or comedians for mocking foreign leaders isn't too bad, it still doesn't disprove my point "Making it illegal would be quite problematic as that power can set a precedent and be abused" as a change to freedom of speech laws right now would occur in a different context than post-World War 2 Germany.

The ability to ban Holocaust denialism now would poke a hole in free speech protections. It sets a potential precedent for Trump and his next Attorney General.

Why hasn't it set a precedent in Germany then?

[numberthirty]

Since this one has not exactly been burning up the wire...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/31/busin...ike/index.html

Bernie Sanders: Pay your workers better. Warren Buffett: That's not my job

Warren Buffett, the ninth-richest person on the planet, says it's not up to him to settle a strike by 450 steelworkers at a company he owns.

Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote a letter to the Berkshire Hathaway CEO, requesting that he intervene in a United Steelworkers union strike at the Special Metals plant in Huntington, West Virginia. They've been on strike for three months. Special Metals is a unit of Precision Castparts, which is owned by Buffett's Berkshire.

"At a time when this company and Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) are both doing very well, there is no reason why workers employed by you should be worrying about whether they will be able to feed their children or have health care," Sanders wrote. "There is no reason why the standard of living of these hard working Americans should decline. I know that you and Berkshire Hathaway can do better than that,"

https://www.wowktv.com/news/local/se...ers-on-strike/

Sen. Bernie Sanders holds virtual town hall for Huntington steelworkers on strike

[Mister Mets]

It would have to be the moderators promoting a safe community.

I would feel that would be perhaps a big ask considering we're watching a former moderator argue why it's acceptable and not a toxic environment for people to spread known falsehoods and conspiracy theories for political purposes in spite of the very recent American history that shows why that's not the case. And then when called out for it, try a rubber/glue method to accuse their political opposite numbers of doing the same, without establishing a single actual conspiracy theory.

It's especially sad that this same individual also likes to dismiss the arguments of others by claiming they're in "bad faith", as they argue in favor of the worst faith arguments being an acceptable part of discourse.

The moderators here are unpaid volunteers on a hobbyist website.

It is worth noting how rarely any of them venture in the political thread, which is unfortunate because I'm sure some of them are well-informed individuals with useful insights into current events. I can understand why they don't want the headache of making controversial statements on politics, which inevitably happens if they're called to be fact-checkers.

Right now, their main responsibilities would be to deal with spammers and personal insults, which are largely black and white issues. Differentiating between legitimate views and illegitimate views can get messy, especially with outsiders observing for signs of bias. There will likely be some honest mistakes, which will lead to blowback.

Why hasn't it set a precedent in Germany then?

A comedian was prosecuted for mocking the President of Turkey.

[thwhtGuardian]

The moderators here are unpaid volunteers on a hobbyist website.

It is worth noting how rarely any of them venture in the political thread, which is unfortunate because I'm sure some of them are well-informed individuals with useful insights into current events. I can understand why they don't want the headache of making controversial statements on politics, which inevitably happens if they're called to be fact-checkers.

Right now, their main responsibilities would be to deal with spammers and personal insults, which are largely black and white issues. Differentiating between legitimate views and illegitimate views can get messy, especially with outsiders observing for signs of bias. There will likely be some honest mistakes, which will lead to blowback.

A comedian was prosecuted for mocking the President of Turkey.

It was dropped, and latter the law was changed to make it less broad so as not to happen again.

So, close but no cigar?

How about just trying to admit that the slippery slope you were trying to build on holocaust denial laws just doesn't work? Isn't the truth easier?


Also, not criticizing the mods here, but tons of other boards have very strict no disinformation policies...and they're very easy to police. Anti-vax, and the election was stolen "points of view" just aren't based on reality and it's very easy to tell those kinds of fiction from reality. It's no different, or harder than policing posts for coarse language, racism, sexism or homophobia.

[Mister Mets]

It was dropped, and latter the law was changed to make it less broad so as not to happen again.

So, close but no cigar?

How about just trying to admit that the slippery slope you were trying to build on holocaust denial laws just doesn't work? Isn't the truth easier?

As I've noted before the context for the passage of Holocaust denial laws in the United States would be different. But there do remain serious objections to German free speech laws.

If charges are dropped and a law is changed, it still represented a serious problem. Even if prosecutions don't result in fines or jail time, it is a time-consuming and stressful process to be avoided unless necessary.

Looking at German free speech controversies, there's an interesting one about the right to be forgotten, where people can insist that archived information may be made unavailable. A court rules that Google had to filter search engine access to stories involving a man convicted of double murder.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rgotten-online

Human Rights Watch is concerned about how laws restricting hate speech online create incentives for third parties to shut down legitimate speech in the interest of expediency.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/...cial-media-law

First, the law places the burden on companies that host third-party content to make difficult determinations of when user speech violates the law, under conditions that encourage suppression of arguably lawful speech. Even courts can find these determinations challenging, as they require a nuanced understanding of context, culture, and law. Faced with short review periods and the risk of steep fines, companies have little incentive to err on the side of free expression.

Second, the law fails to provide either judicial oversight or a judicial remedy should a cautious corporate decision violate a person’s right to speak or access information. In this way, the largest platforms for online expression become “no accountability” zones, where government pressure to censor evades judicial scrutiny.

[4saken1]

In fact, it took someone on the left to even mention the existence of liberals who spout 9/11 truther conspiracies. However, that's mostly people on the furthest fringes of the left and I haven't heard of a single liberal or Democrat 9/11 truther being elected to public office. There are plenty of Q-Anon believers who are now in state and local offices and even a few in the US Congress.

Good point.

[thwhtGuardian]

That guardian story has nothing to do with Holocaust Denial laws, and your second link is just big business whining about how being responsible is hard and expensive, and when has that been something to believe?

And your point wasn't that some might not like laws restricting bans on hate speech but that it would be very problematic and only lead to abuse. And yet the best support you come up with is corporate push back and a case that never went to trial.

I think the fact that Germany is doing just fine and that the people are considered to be generally happy and free would give most people pause to think, "hey, maybe I was wrong?" ... but maybe that's just how my mind works?

[Johnathan]

Some things to consider here is that we already censor content through the FCC for a lot of television programming. Essentially, it was based on the idea that the "airwaves" were public property so while the networks could license the use of a frequency, they could not purchase it. So the FCC became the regulator ensuring they were paying for it and also they had the responsibility for protecting the public interest in the content that the networks provided.

The argument here was that such a powerful electronic medium would be able to have an inordinate amount of influence on the public. Naturally, as the United States also turned the airwaves over to advertising, we can see exactly how powerful it was.

The reason this was not considered a constitutional violation was that freedom of speech was interpreted to mean speech in a physical public space and freedom of the press obviously referred to printed material (which was mostly controlled by massive publishing conglomerates or even individuals that controlled many major newspapers and periodicals).

So, if there was a "slippery slope," we've been going down it since 1934... not much of a slope.

The internet and social media is mainly just a new iteration of the electronic media and certainly has compounded risks so the same arguments remain to regulate it and its content.

Additionally, even if we might use these sites as a form of "news media" that would not immediately tend to arguments of the freedom of press or speech in that they are often privately owned sites running on a network of public and private infrastructure (servers, phone lines, transmission towers, etc.). So, it is doubtful anyone is actually on "public property" when posting a story, comment or tweet (or sending an email for that matter). Protection of privacy and personal data is certainly a concern that has had a lot of regulation and laws passed, but freedom of expression, in the same way, cannot be assumed by the constitution- it has to be enacted into law.

More importantly here though, is that it would only be the private owners of the sites and supporting infrastructure that could be granted that protection - not individual users - and they likely do not want it. Freedom of the Press, for example, also means that the people printing the material are responsible for what they print - except in the case of advertisements in their papers. I doubt Facebook or Twitter or YouTube would accept or pursue legislation that made them entirely responsible for everything their users posted.

[Tami]

Not getting into the other issues at the moment (maybe later), but as far as the CBR Moderators are concerned....

I'm in favor of letting them do their job as they see fit. Many have been doing this for a long time so they have some sense of what is appropriate and what isn't.

If there is a problem, lodge a complaint. As is the normal course, after a complaint is filed, the Mods and Admins will look into it and decide what to do.

Otherwise, consider this an exercise is learning how to tell fact from fiction.

And continue to debate as usual.

While I am fervently against the kinds of lies and conspiracy theories that lead up to Jan 6, and are still plaguing this and other countries, I don't see the CBR as a hot bed of radical thought [Unless it pertains to DCU vs MCU or Star Wars vs Star Trek]. Last time there was a major issue, the whole forum was wiped clean and reset.

I've been here since 2004, going on 18 years. In that time, I've only had a few issues with other members and the mods took care of it real quick.

[Jack Dracula]

Freedom of speech has always been an interesting topic for debate. Most people would agree that it doesn’t allow for someone shouting Fire! in a crowded theater, but somehow it’s allowed for a public figure with major influence to claim the 2020 election was rigged. In my opinion the rule should be that if that person or anyone with public influence or a major platform can’t submit actual legal proof of such an inflammatory claim they should be legally compelled to shut the f**k up or face federal charges.
But that’s just me.