They were tricked by a propaganda machine. They may have been willing participants but had they known everything they never would have voted against their own interests. Yet every country in the western hemisphere, South America, Africa, Asia, and well everywhere doesn’t have anti propaganda laws. If you’re rich you can buy influence in any neo liberal country. Why is that?
How do you construct anti-propaganda laws that can’t be used by bad actors to silence dissent? Genuine question if you have an answer but I don’t think anyone actually does. The only actual counter to propaganda is quality education, which is where the US has been failing dramatically.
So far all anti propaganda laws were passed in totalitarian states to suppress dissidents. But I think a good start would be to look at pre-existing limitations on free speech. Can you shout “fire” in a crowded theater just for funsies? No? Then we’ve already got a public safety caveat in our right to free speech. So you can’t say something that will kill people IF IT IS A LIE. There are also time place and manner restrictions on free speech. So we agree there is a time and place where you can criticize the state. So we sort of believe that during public emergencies, such as during a pandemic, you cannot spread lies about the pandemic.
The comment says anti-propaganda laws. I’m 100% in favor of anti-fraud laws, but propaganda is special that it’s not always direct (read as: legally enforcable) lies.
A lot of them are. I think one could argue the news always saying “crime go up” is an easily provable misrepresentation and if the anti fraud laws were strong enough that a city might be able to sue large companies for such a misrepresentation, it could heavily damage the propaganda value.
Another instance: if people saying a “nobody was arrested for BLM”. Then somebody arrested during BLM should have the right to sue a big outlet like fox news if they repeat the lie.
That’s still not directly anti-propaganda laws. I’m very much in favor of holding media that lies accountable, beyond just civil law.
I’m talking about propaganda as a whole, which very much includes things that aren’t lies. For example, during the 2024 US election, I was bombarded with ads that used anecdotal evidence and indirect language to create a subtextual message of immigrants=criminals. The best counter to this imo, and propaganda as a whole, is education because proper education in critical thinking (which even the best US schools seem to avoid, wonder why…) would let people have the tools to know that you can’t create a conclusion that big from anecdotes.
Strong anti-fraud laws encompass far more than propaganda and are a low hanging fruit of creating a just society, which is why I’m focusing on anti-propaganda specifically and how someone would avoid creating a perfect tool for abuse by a bad actor. I’m not doing this to be facetious or anything, I want to know if anyone has already come up with an approach to this problem
They were tricked by a propaganda machine. They may have been willing participants but had they known everything they never would have voted against their own interests. Yet every country in the western hemisphere, South America, Africa, Asia, and well everywhere doesn’t have anti propaganda laws. If you’re rich you can buy influence in any neo liberal country. Why is that?
How do you construct anti-propaganda laws that can’t be used by bad actors to silence dissent? Genuine question if you have an answer but I don’t think anyone actually does. The only actual counter to propaganda is quality education, which is where the US has been failing dramatically.
So far all anti propaganda laws were passed in totalitarian states to suppress dissidents. But I think a good start would be to look at pre-existing limitations on free speech. Can you shout “fire” in a crowded theater just for funsies? No? Then we’ve already got a public safety caveat in our right to free speech. So you can’t say something that will kill people IF IT IS A LIE. There are also time place and manner restrictions on free speech. So we agree there is a time and place where you can criticize the state. So we sort of believe that during public emergencies, such as during a pandemic, you cannot spread lies about the pandemic.
There are ways to prove lies.
You have to target entities that knowingly lie and portray themselves as serious. Anti fraud laws with teeth.
The comment says anti-propaganda laws. I’m 100% in favor of anti-fraud laws, but propaganda is special that it’s not always direct (read as: legally enforcable) lies.
A lot of them are. I think one could argue the news always saying “crime go up” is an easily provable misrepresentation and if the anti fraud laws were strong enough that a city might be able to sue large companies for such a misrepresentation, it could heavily damage the propaganda value.
Another instance: if people saying a “nobody was arrested for BLM”. Then somebody arrested during BLM should have the right to sue a big outlet like fox news if they repeat the lie.
That’s still not directly anti-propaganda laws. I’m very much in favor of holding media that lies accountable, beyond just civil law.
I’m talking about propaganda as a whole, which very much includes things that aren’t lies. For example, during the 2024 US election, I was bombarded with ads that used anecdotal evidence and indirect language to create a subtextual message of immigrants=criminals. The best counter to this imo, and propaganda as a whole, is education because proper education in critical thinking (which even the best US schools seem to avoid, wonder why…) would let people have the tools to know that you can’t create a conclusion that big from anecdotes.
Strong anti-fraud laws encompass far more than propaganda and are a low hanging fruit of creating a just society, which is why I’m focusing on anti-propaganda specifically and how someone would avoid creating a perfect tool for abuse by a bad actor. I’m not doing this to be facetious or anything, I want to know if anyone has already come up with an approach to this problem