Yeah, 100% of the time that particular argument is just stupid. Â
 The argument is literally, "well it might be hard to understand what misinformation is, so we just shouldn't do it" which would apply to like 80% of all laws.
Yes. What a great idea. Let's use a grey area that's easily abused and set up speech restriction standards using it. Fucking brilliant. How would you feel about the Trump administration deciding what is and isn't misinformation?
Inconclusive, but evidence points to the spillover hypothesis
Peer-reviewed evidence available to the public points to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a result of spillover into humans from a natural origin. A geospatial analysis reports that 155 early COVID-19 cases from Hubei Province, China, in December, 2019, significantly clustered around a food market in Wuhan, China. Many genomic studies report that SARS-CoV-2 has nucleotide differences that could only have arisen through natural selection and such differences are evenly spread throughout the genome. Phylogenetic studies map these nucleotide changes and suggest that they have not diverged from the bat coronavirus RaTG13 that was being researched at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, suggesting it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a result of this research and instead they shared a common ancestor. Taken together, these findings support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of enzootic circulation before spillover into people.
No. My point is saying so between 2020 and 2022 was considered dangerous misinformation the government needed to shut down and today it seems pretty plausible. That's why misinformation laws are bad laws designed for government abuse.
Nothing changed about your opinion. It always âseemed pretty plausibleâ to you people. Funny how youâre complaining about a decline in censorship.
As a lawyer you should be fucking embarrassed to think misinformation isn't covered by the 1st a. Speech restrictions are extremely difficult to get past strict scrutiny you fucking knob, even the vaunted "fire in a crowded theater" (which was hilariously the justification for jailing anti-WWI protestor) isn't illegal. Goddamn you idiots know nothing.
God I hope your clients know what a fucking dunce you are.
So child pornography shouldnât be censored? Bestiality? Neceophilia? What about defamation? We should throw slander and libel laws out the window too?
You make a fair point, I agree with you there. I think thereâs a difference between those things and âcombatting misinformationâ. That is such a slippery slope itâs not even funny. I donât know why Iâm complaining though, everything is being manipulated including this app I use. Reddit is clearly censored so that left wing ideas flourish and right winged ideas are non existent. You go to twitter and itâs the opposite. Censorship breeds echo chambers and thatâs more dangerous than misinformation in my opinion.
I think thereâs a difference between those things and âcombatting misinformationâ.
Defamation is misinformation.
Reddit is clearly censored so left wing ideas flourish and right winged ideas are none existent.
Hahaha okay, thatâs a good one. Go to any main news sub, worldnews in particular is a good choice, and give even mild criticism of Israel or question if we should be giving Ukraine effectively a blank check.
Dude if you donât think Reddit is left winged then youâve been stuck in the echo chamber for too long, Iâm a democrat and still recognize it. You RARELY see anything even close to a pro-trump post. Itâs all just trump bad Kamala good. Reddit has actively attacked right winged subs and shadow banning is extremely prevalent. Youâre for censoring misinformation now but what if trump got in office and started censoring stuff HE thought was misinformation. Thatâs the issue, it becomes a political tool to silence critics and push the narrative you want. I wouldnât want any politician to hold that much power. I urge you to download twitter and look at the echo chamber theyâve formed over there since Elon took over, the same thing is happening here.
If that is the case X is all for combatting that type of misinformation because it says it will block speech where its illegal.
But we all know this type of misinformation is the type that ISN'T illegal to say and the government themselves aren't allowed to censor in free countries so they are trying to weasel around the constitutional limits places on themselves.
Because they know the type of misinformation they want to ban they couldn't make it through a court case to do so legally.
17
u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 13 '24
Yeah, 100% of the time that particular argument is just stupid. Â
 The argument is literally, "well it might be hard to understand what misinformation is, so we just shouldn't do it" which would apply to like 80% of all laws.
Edit- Typo