Do you consider laws that prevent foreign governments from giving money to political campaigns “laws that prevent foreign countries spending money in the US”? Or laws that prevent the export of military equipment “laws that prevent foreign countries from buying US made products”?
Do you consider laws that prevent foreign governments from giving money to political campaigns “laws that prevent foreign countries spending money in the US”? Or laws that prevent the export of military equipment “laws that prevent foreign countries from buying US made products”?
Neither of those is a useful comparison. At the heart of this is political speech and how the state can stop it from happening. Basically you stop it at the root, i.e. information control so that ideas which are beneficial to foreign governments don't spread to American citizens who may then spread them, or you regulate the activity of American citizens spreading those ideas.
Even the "ad space" argument is just a permutation of this.
Do you consider laws that prevent foreign governments from giving money to political campaigns “laws that prevent foreign countries spending money in the US”? Or laws that prevent the export of military equipment “laws that prevent foreign countries from buying US made products”?
Neither of those is a useful comparison. At the heart of this is political speech and how the state can stop it from happening. Basically you stop it at the root, i.e. information control so that ideas which are beneficial to foreign governments don't spread to American citizens who may then spread them, or you regulate the activity of American citizens spreading those ideas.
Even the "ad space" argument is just a permutation of this.
Do you consider laws that prevent foreign governments from giving money to political campaigns “laws that prevent foreign countries spending money in the US”? Or laws that prevent the export of military equipment “laws that prevent foreign countries from buying US made products”?
Neither of those is a useful comparison. At the heart of this is political speech and how the state can stop it from happening. Basically you stop it at the root, i.e. information control so that ideas which are beneficial to foreign governments don't spread to American citizens who may then spread them, or you regulate the activity of American citizens spreading those ideas.
Even the "ad space" argument is just a permutation of this.
The first one is directly equivalent.
It is equivalent if you think I'm going to make an argument that money is speech.
Do you consider laws that prevent foreign governments from giving money to political campaigns “laws that prevent foreign countries spending money in the US”? Or laws that prevent the export of military equipment “laws that prevent foreign countries from buying US made products”?
Neither of those is a useful comparison. At the heart of this is political speech and how the state can stop it from happening. Basically you stop it at the root, i.e. information control so that ideas which are beneficial to foreign governments don't spread to American citizens who may then spread them, or you regulate the activity of American citizens spreading those ideas.
Even the "ad space" argument is just a permutation of this.
The first one is directly equivalent.
It is equivalent if you think I'm going to make an argument that money is speech.
They're both directly fucking analagous because their both situations in which reasonable restrictions on otherwise normal activity is enacted because "FUCKING DUH" and its not in any way ever portrayed as some abrogation of basic rights or fundamental identifying properties.
"No, Foreign Governments, you do not get to fuck with elections" is NOT "No, Foreign Governments, you don't get to have ideas maaaan, and also totally cannot talk to people about them."
They're both directly fucking analagous because their both situations in which reasonable restrictions on otherwise normal activity is enacted because "FUCKING DUH" and its not in any way ever portrayed as some abrogation of basic rights or fundamental identifying properties.
"No, Foreign Governments, you do not get to fuck with elections" is NOT "No, Foreign Governments, you don't get to have ideas maaaan, and also totally cannot talk to people about them."
That is literally what the influence campaign was. It was the Russian (at the same time similar Iranian and Chinese operations were happening) government putting out propaganda, or ideas, and US citizens wittingly and unwittingly spreading it through otherwise legitimate activities.
Do you consider laws that prevent foreign governments from giving money to political campaigns “laws that prevent foreign countries spending money in the US”? Or laws that prevent the export of military equipment “laws that prevent foreign countries from buying US made products”?
Neither of those is a useful comparison. At the heart of this is political speech and how the state can stop it from happening. Basically you stop it at the root, i.e. information control so that ideas which are beneficial to foreign governments don't spread to American citizens who may then spread them, or you regulate the activity of American citizens spreading those ideas.
Even the "ad space" argument is just a permutation of this.
The first one is directly equivalent.
It is equivalent if you think I'm going to make an argument that money is speech.
Ok I need to read up on the fairness doctrine. I spoke outta' my ass and now I gotta eat that crow.
But the principle of laws stopping hate speech and propoganda is valid, right? Write new laws for social media and enforce them.
The problem that's facing America (most countries have this problem, but America is most problematic) is who writes and enforces those laws?
Cause I wouldn't trust anything that most sitting Republicans would sign off on, and given what we saw with impeachment, and McConnell's packing of the lower courts, I wouldn't trust that it'd be fairly adjudicated, especially during Republican administrations.
America is basically beyond the point where this kind of thing can be solved through the legislative and judicial processes. It'll only be solved by what's happened with the BLM/George Floyd protests. Like what's happening to the Washington football team at the moment. Public pressure shaming these white hood motherfuckers back into their basements.
Well yea. I approached this as kind of a hypothetical. If we are to discuss actual change then you start looking at breaking into Facebook corporate headquarters and burning it down. Facebook ain't going nowhere and neither is Zuck. Facebook is gonna continue to be a cesspit and Zuck will die, wealthy and powerful, never held accountable for his bullshit.
That Americans fell for propaganda does not make the source of the propaganda irrelevant. Silliest H Goose on a cross.
So we create a US law which stops foreign countries from having ideas and talking to American citizens about them?
We create a U.S. law that requires any foreign government to disclose their influence. We create another U.S. law that mandates any advertisement clearly label itself as such.
Which is a solid start. I don’t really care about any stupid slippery slope scenarios.
This doesn't name any exact laws or statutes, but it does contain the following statements about american tv ads
Senator Mark Warner said Congress may need to update laws in order to make them consistent with rules governing television advertising.
...
A second Democratic senator, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, said on Thursday that he supported regulating social media ads like TV ads.
...
Television has been the backbone of political advertising for decades, and local U.S. broadcasters are required to disclose a wealth of details about the cost and schedules of commercials. The ads can be seen by anyone with a television provided they are aired in their markets.
This doesn't name any exact laws or statutes, but it does contain the following statements about american tv ads
Senator Mark Warner said Congress may need to update laws in order to make them consistent with rules governing television advertising.
...
A second Democratic senator, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, said on Thursday that he supported regulating social media ads like TV ads.
...
Television has been the backbone of political advertising for decades, and local U.S. broadcasters are required to disclose a wealth of details about the cost and schedules of commercials. The ads can be seen by anyone with a television provided they are aired in their markets.
The only thing this article seems to be talking about is disclosure. It sounds like people in this thread want to go far beyond that.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
That Americans fell for propaganda does not make the source of the propaganda irrelevant. Silliest H Goose on a cross.
So we create a US law which stops foreign countries from having ideas and talking to American citizens about them?
We create a U.S. law that requires any foreign government to disclose their influence. We create another U.S. law that mandates any advertisement clearly label itself as such.
Which is a solid start. I don’t really care about any stupid slippery slope scenarios.
What about something to target bots? Could there be a law that forces bot post to identify as such?
They're both directly fucking analagous because their both situations in which reasonable restrictions on otherwise normal activity is enacted because "FUCKING DUH" and its not in any way ever portrayed as some abrogation of basic rights or fundamental identifying properties.
"No, Foreign Governments, you do not get to fuck with elections" is NOT "No, Foreign Governments, you don't get to have ideas maaaan, and also totally cannot talk to people about them."
That is literally what the influence campaign was. It was the Russian (at the same time similar Iranian and Chinese operations were happening) government putting out propaganda, or ideas, and US citizens wittingly and unwittingly spreading it through otherwise legitimate activities.
So no, they still aren't analogous.
I do not understand what you're trying to say here. Do you have an argument as to why they're not analogous?
Because "Iran Buys cant buy tanks from the US" is indeed also "Foreign governments want to buy our products but we won't let them spend money in the US!?!". And the point was not that "its not actually that thing" but that the construction of the second sentence belies the fact that there are indeed some things that we reasonably have restrictions on even if you can venn diagram your way to making it look like a thing we want to promote in whole.
So like, sure its fine that "foreign governments have ideas and express those ideas to the US". But that does not mean that election interference is OK because its fundamentally different when the ideas they're expressing are political. Just like its ok that "foreign governments buy our industrial products" but that does not mean that we should be OK when those industrial products are tanks because its fundamentally different when the goods they're buying are motherfucking elections!
They're both directly fucking analagous because their both situations in which reasonable restrictions on otherwise normal activity is enacted because "FUCKING DUH" and its not in any way ever portrayed as some abrogation of basic rights or fundamental identifying properties.
"No, Foreign Governments, you do not get to fuck with elections" is NOT "No, Foreign Governments, you don't get to have ideas maaaan, and also totally cannot talk to people about them."
That is literally what the influence campaign was. It was the Russian (at the same time similar Iranian and Chinese operations were happening) government putting out propaganda, or ideas, and US citizens wittingly and unwittingly spreading it through otherwise legitimate activities.
So no, they still aren't analogous.
I do not understand what you're trying to say here. Do you have an argument as to why they're not analogous?
Because "Iran Buys cant buy tanks from the US" is indeed also "Foreign governments want to buy our products but we won't let them spend money in the US!?!". And the point was not that "its not actually that thing" but that the construction of the second sentence belies the fact that there are indeed some things that we reasonably have restrictions on even if you can venn diagram your way to making it look like a thing we want to promote in whole.
So like, sure its fine that "foreign governments have ideas and express those ideas to the US". But that does not mean that election interference is OK because its fundamentally different when the ideas they're expressing are political. Just like its ok that "foreign governments buy our industrial products" but that does not mean that we should be OK when those industrial products are tanks because its fundamentally different when the goods they're buying are motherfucking elections!
Do you still not see the analogy?
They are "buying" our elections by e.g. influencing American citizens to promote BLM on social media. It's almost like you haven't actually read anything on the influence campaign and just assume a Russian NGO dropped money bags off to the Politics Office.
Russia promoting black lives matter is not a good thing and I support black lives matter.
+5
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Rand, we know how advertising works. We are trying to explain to you that advertising is not a sacrosanct field. It needs regulation, it needs open disclosure.
Rand, we know how advertising works. We are trying to explain to you that advertising is not a sacrosanct field. It needs regulation, it needs open disclosure.
It wasn't only advertising (which is not wholly unprotected). Which is what I am trying to explain to you. The influence campaign also involved US citizens engaging in political speech on social media pushing narratives that the influence campaign wanted, wittingly and unwittingly. That is more insidious and also a dangerous area for the state to step into.
The current elite position is already roughly "if you oppose our politics you're a foreign agent and a traitor and you want our troops to die and the end of democracy". And establishment voters eat it up. Even on this forum. And that's before giving the state the power to prosecute citizens for engaging in political speech because it is e.g. in the interest of a foreign adversary to promote black American identity politics and BLM for the purposes of political division.
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Rand, we know how advertising works. We are trying to explain to you that advertising is not a sacrosanct field. It needs regulation, it needs open disclosure.
It wasn't only advertising (which is not wholly unprotected). Which is what I am trying to explain to you. The influence campaign also involved US citizens engaging in political speech on social media pushing narratives that the influence campaign wanted, wittingly and unwittingly. That is more insidious and also a dangerous area for the state to step into.
The current elite position is already roughly "if you oppose our politics you're a foreign agent and a traitor and you want our troops to die and the end of democracy". And establishment voters eat it up. Even on this forum. And that's before giving the state the power to prosecute citizens for engaging in political speech because it is e.g. in the interest of a foreign adversary to promote black American identity politics and BLM for the purposes of political division.
Rand we know this part too. Are you trying to suggest that because there was another use of social media influencing that us trying to correct the advertising issue shouldn't be done? We can fix both issues you know. Just because we're talking about one angle doesn't mean we think the other is okay or isn't a factor.
That Americans fell for propaganda does not make the source of the propaganda irrelevant. Silliest H Goose on a cross.
So we create a US law which stops foreign countries from having ideas and talking to American citizens about them?
We create a U.S. law that requires any foreign government to disclose their influence. We create another U.S. law that mandates any advertisement clearly label itself as such.
Which is a solid start. I don’t really care about any stupid slippery slope scenarios.
What about something to target bots? Could there be a law that forces bot post to identify as such?
The problem there is that the bot posts are generally coming from overseas. Regulating advertisements is easier, as Facebook is meaningfully subject to the laws of the United States in a way that someone sitting in front of a computer in Russia is not.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
There's ways to trace bot activity on social media platforms. People have been doing it for years and the methods are very clearly explained. Social media companies haven't acted on them though unless any given account is directly reported.
The cynic in me thinks they don't do anything about them systematically because it makes it look like the platform isn't as in-use as people think. There's already enough of a stink made every time Twitter makes a sweep for fake / artificial accounts used to boost follow counts.
Also known as the "No way to prevent this, says only nation where this regularly happens" defense
I do not think that is remotely true in this case. France and other countries have complained of foreign interference in their politics as well. I’d bet it’s pretty much as ubiquitous as internet access is, outside of authoritarian states that either don’t have elections or don’t permit free political speech.
That Americans fell for propaganda does not make the source of the propaganda irrelevant. Silliest H Goose on a cross.
So we create a US law which stops foreign countries from having ideas and talking to American citizens about them?
We create a U.S. law that requires any foreign government to disclose their influence. We create another U.S. law that mandates any advertisement clearly label itself as such.
Which is a solid start. I don’t really care about any stupid slippery slope scenarios.
Would this actually do anything? If a foreign country is running an influence campaign to interfere in US elections, why would they care about how US law views that activity?
Also known as the "No way to prevent this, says only nation where this regularly happens" defense
I do not think that is remotely true in this case. France and other countries have complained of foreign interference in their politics as well. I’d bet it’s pretty much as ubiquitous as internet access is, outside of authoritarian states that either don’t have elections or don’t permit free political speech.
That Americans fell for propaganda does not make the source of the propaganda irrelevant. Silliest H Goose on a cross.
So we create a US law which stops foreign countries from having ideas and talking to American citizens about them?
We create a U.S. law that requires any foreign government to disclose their influence. We create another U.S. law that mandates any advertisement clearly label itself as such.
Which is a solid start. I don’t really care about any stupid slippery slope scenarios.
Would this actually do anything? If a foreign country is running an influence campaign to interfere in US elections, why would they care about how US law views that activity?
One imagines the law affects the people/company running the ad in America. With say, rather draconian penalties. Facebook would have to say which adds were paid for by Russian/Iranian/Chinese/etc (probably every other country on God's Green Earth except for Easter Island) money.
Of course this leads up to the problems of Super PACs and dark money. That shit has to get fixed as well.
Rand, we know how advertising works. We are trying to explain to you that advertising is not a sacrosanct field. It needs regulation, it needs open disclosure.
It wasn't only advertising (which is not wholly unprotected). Which is what I am trying to explain to you. The influence campaign also involved US citizens engaging in political speech on social media pushing narratives that the influence campaign wanted, wittingly and unwittingly. That is more insidious and also a dangerous area for the state to step into.
The current elite position is already roughly "if you oppose our politics you're a foreign agent and a traitor and you want our troops to die and the end of democracy". And establishment voters eat it up. Even on this forum. And that's before giving the state the power to prosecute citizens for engaging in political speech because it is e.g. in the interest of a foreign adversary to promote black American identity politics and BLM for the purposes of political division.
No. The foreign influence campaign did not involve US citizens engaging in political speech on social media pushing the narratives that the influence campaigns wanted out of the fucking blue. As if the foreign influence campaign did not do things that caused that to happen, for that express purpose. As if they did not advertise with the intent that that would happen. As if their paying people to represent themselves as authentic and spread your message isn't an advertising method...
Does this make no sense to you? The foreign influence campaigns did not consist of people doing nothing and then being pleasantly surprised when Americans picked up the narrates they wanted pushed. They did the thing. They pushed the narratives. And saying "well they produced measurable deliverables as a result of their actions" doesn't mean that we cannot work to prevent the thing that actually produced those measurable deliverables.
Your argument here is "we cannot possibly regulate this activity because this activity succeeded"
Hypothetically, if we could somehow ban people and organizations from presenting demonstrable falsehood as truth (and this were implemented in a way that reflects actual reality, not political "reality"), would that be a good thing?
You could still post, e.g., religious doctrine (because it's not demonstrably false), but you couldn't make a post claiming Obama doesn't have a birth certificate or vaccines cause autism or the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint or whatever.
We can't right now, so it's moot. But the idea is setting off authoritarian alarm bells (edit: for me), and I'm not sure exactly why; so I'm wondering what other people think.
I do think banning hate speech would be a good thing, though. Other countries have already done it, so we know it's doable.
Hypothetically, if we could somehow ban people and organizations from presenting demonstrable falsehood as truth (and this were implemented in a way that reflects actual reality, not political "reality"), would that be a good thing?
You could still post, e.g., religious doctrine (because it's not demonstrably false), but you couldn't make a post claiming Obama doesn't have a birth certificate or vaccines cause autism or the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint or whatever.
We can't right now, so it's moot. But the idea is setting off authoritarian alarm bells (edit: for me), and I'm not sure exactly why; so I'm wondering what other people think.
I do think banning hate speech would be a good thing, though. Other countries have already done it, so we know it's doable.
Banning people from lying? I can think of a few scenarios where that could be very bad.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A lot of religious doctrine is demonstrably false, so you're not going to escape that conflict.
I don't actually think so.
The existence of God(s) is impossible to prove or disprove, as is what he/she/they think about anything. And you can always preface statements with "I believe" or "my church believes."
Hypothetically, if we could somehow ban people and organizations from presenting demonstrable falsehood as truth (and this were implemented in a way that reflects actual reality, not political "reality"), would that be a good thing?
You could still post, e.g., religious doctrine (because it's not demonstrably false), but you couldn't make a post claiming Obama doesn't have a birth certificate or vaccines cause autism or the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint or whatever.
We can't right now, so it's moot. But the idea is setting off authoritarian alarm bells (edit: for me), and I'm not sure exactly why; so I'm wondering what other people think.
I do think banning hate speech would be a good thing, though. Other countries have already done it, so we know it's doable.
Banning people from lying? I can think of a few scenarios where that could be very bad.
What if you limit it to banning lying with the intent to influence public behavior? That seems closer to the fighting words standard.
I guess this needs to be asked: @NSDFRand do you feel that what you are describing is a problem?
I worked on a project that involved this topic for .gov. Yes, it is a vulnerability just as any domestic freedom is a vulnerability an adversary government can exploit. No, I do not think the state moving to restrict speech of US citizens because that speech is in the interest of a foreign adversary is a good idea.
I guess this needs to be asked: NSDFRand do you feel that what you are describing is a problem?
I worked on a project that involved this topic for .gov. Yes, it is a vulnerability just as any domestic freedom is a vulnerability an adversary government can exploit. No, I do not think the state moving to restrict speech of US citizens because that speech is in the interest of a foreign adversary is a good idea.
So your answer is "well it sucks that foreign governments are interfering with our elections, but it would be worse to do something about it?"
Hypothetically, if we could somehow ban people and organizations from presenting demonstrable falsehood as truth (and this were implemented in a way that reflects actual reality, not political "reality"), would that be a good thing?
You could still post, e.g., religious doctrine (because it's not demonstrably false), but you couldn't make a post claiming Obama doesn't have a birth certificate or vaccines cause autism or the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint or whatever.
We can't right now, so it's moot. But the idea is setting off authoritarian alarm bells (edit: for me), and I'm not sure exactly why; so I'm wondering what other people think.
I do think banning hate speech would be a good thing, though. Other countries have already done it, so we know it's doable.
Banning people from lying? I can think of a few scenarios where that could be very bad.
What if you limit it to banning lying with the intent to influence public behavior? That seems closer to the fighting words standard.
If it stopped at facebook style quasi-censoring (graying out with a "this is false and here's why" link) and only applied to inarguably factually incorrect things then I'd be fine with it. If an individual or organization really regularly falls afoul of that conservative metric then sure, ban 'em. I don't think you even need the "intent to influence public behavior" vaguery. That could be abused and overextended in the wrong hands, admittedly... maybe it's just that I'm tired, but I feel like it's worth trying with that explicitly limited philosophy.
E: I should probably note that I mean all this in the context of social media, since it hasn't come up yet in the quote tree. That is what we're talking about, right?
I guess this needs to be asked: NSDFRand do you feel that what you are describing is a problem?
I worked on a project that involved this topic for .gov. Yes, it is a vulnerability just as any domestic freedom is a vulnerability an adversary government can exploit. No, I do not think the state moving to restrict speech of US citizens because that speech is in the interest of a foreign adversary is a good idea.
So your answer is "well it sucks that foreign governments are interfering with our elections, but it would be worse to do something about it?"
We have a fundamental disagreement about which should be weighed more heavily: freedom or state security.
Hypothetically, if we could somehow ban people and organizations from presenting demonstrable falsehood as truth (and this were implemented in a way that reflects actual reality, not political "reality"), would that be a good thing?
You could still post, e.g., religious doctrine (because it's not demonstrably false), but you couldn't make a post claiming Obama doesn't have a birth certificate or vaccines cause autism or the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint or whatever.
We can't right now, so it's moot. But the idea is setting off authoritarian alarm bells (edit: for me), and I'm not sure exactly why; so I'm wondering what other people think.
I do think banning hate speech would be a good thing, though. Other countries have already done it, so we know it's doable.
Banning people from lying? I can think of a few scenarios where that could be very bad.
What if you limit it to banning lying with the intent to influence public behavior? That seems closer to the fighting words standard.
Like, how public? Lying about where a protest is going to happen to evade the police or whether you're at home right now to evade a stalker? Lying as part of a scientific study when you plan to disclose the truth as soon as it's finished? Lying as part of performance art because you're Banksy? Lying to a reporter who asked a stupid leading question that could endanger national security? How about a bomb hoax or a suicide threat where the person spreading it earnestly believes it? A conspiracy theory that somebody like Epstein was murdered even though the official government position is that he committed suicide?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I don’t see how disclosure of advertising is a significant prior restraint.
I guess this needs to be asked: NSDFRand do you feel that what you are describing is a problem?
I worked on a project that involved this topic for .gov. Yes, it is a vulnerability just as any domestic freedom is a vulnerability an adversary government can exploit. No, I do not think the state moving to restrict speech of US citizens because that speech is in the interest of a foreign adversary is a good idea.
So your answer is "well it sucks that foreign governments are interfering with our elections, but it would be worse to do something about it?"
We have a fundamental disagreement about which should be weighed more heavily: freedom or state security.
What you have is a delusion that we can have free and fair elections without measures taken to curb undue influence by forces both domestic and foreign.
I guess this needs to be asked: NSDFRand do you feel that what you are describing is a problem?
I worked on a project that involved this topic for .gov. Yes, it is a vulnerability just as any domestic freedom is a vulnerability an adversary government can exploit. No, I do not think the state moving to restrict speech of US citizens because that speech is in the interest of a foreign adversary is a good idea.
So your answer is "well it sucks that foreign governments are interfering with our elections, but it would be worse to do something about it?"
We have a fundamental disagreement about which should be weighed more heavily: freedom or state security.
What you have is a delusion that we can have free and fair elections without measures taken to curb undue influence by forces both domestic and foreign.
To be clear, the undue influence you are talking about is political speech conducted by US citizens.
I guess this needs to be asked: NSDFRand do you feel that what you are describing is a problem?
I worked on a project that involved this topic for .gov. Yes, it is a vulnerability just as any domestic freedom is a vulnerability an adversary government can exploit. No, I do not think the state moving to restrict speech of US citizens because that speech is in the interest of a foreign adversary is a good idea.
So your answer is "well it sucks that foreign governments are interfering with our elections, but it would be worse to do something about it?"
We have a fundamental disagreement about which should be weighed more heavily: freedom or state security.
What you have is a delusion that we can have free and fair elections without measures taken to curb undue influence by forces both domestic and foreign.
To be clear, the undue influence you are talking about is political speech conducted by US citizens.
No, I'm talking about a whole host of things being conducted by US citizens. That's in addition to the whole host of things being conducted by foreign entities. As far as the scope of this thread, though, we are focused on the spread of deliberate misinformation.
And to be clear I am against US citizens making up conspiracy theories/lies/etc and signal-boosting them just as much as I am against foreign entities.
Posts
Neither of those is a useful comparison. At the heart of this is political speech and how the state can stop it from happening. Basically you stop it at the root, i.e. information control so that ideas which are beneficial to foreign governments don't spread to American citizens who may then spread them, or you regulate the activity of American citizens spreading those ideas.
Even the "ad space" argument is just a permutation of this.
The first one is directly equivalent.
It is equivalent if you think I'm going to make an argument that money is speech.
"No, Foreign Governments, you do not get to fuck with elections" is NOT "No, Foreign Governments, you don't get to have ideas maaaan, and also totally cannot talk to people about them."
That is literally what the influence campaign was. It was the Russian (at the same time similar Iranian and Chinese operations were happening) government putting out propaganda, or ideas, and US citizens wittingly and unwittingly spreading it through otherwise legitimate activities.
So no, they still aren't analogous.
So it only took until the second page for the fairweather legalism to start.
Well yea. I approached this as kind of a hypothetical. If we are to discuss actual change then you start looking at breaking into Facebook corporate headquarters and burning it down. Facebook ain't going nowhere and neither is Zuck. Facebook is gonna continue to be a cesspit and Zuck will die, wealthy and powerful, never held accountable for his bullshit.
And even if there are, that is only a useful analogy as long as Facebook is an American company.
We create a U.S. law that requires any foreign government to disclose their influence. We create another U.S. law that mandates any advertisement clearly label itself as such.
Which is a solid start. I don’t really care about any stupid slippery slope scenarios.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-social-media-idUSKCN1BI2X7
This doesn't name any exact laws or statutes, but it does contain the following statements about american tv ads
The only thing this article seems to be talking about is disclosure. It sounds like people in this thread want to go far beyond that.
What about something to target bots? Could there be a law that forces bot post to identify as such?
I do not understand what you're trying to say here. Do you have an argument as to why they're not analogous?
Because "Iran Buys cant buy tanks from the US" is indeed also "Foreign governments want to buy our products but we won't let them spend money in the US!?!". And the point was not that "its not actually that thing" but that the construction of the second sentence belies the fact that there are indeed some things that we reasonably have restrictions on even if you can venn diagram your way to making it look like a thing we want to promote in whole.
So like, sure its fine that "foreign governments have ideas and express those ideas to the US". But that does not mean that election interference is OK because its fundamentally different when the ideas they're expressing are political. Just like its ok that "foreign governments buy our industrial products" but that does not mean that we should be OK when those industrial products are tanks because its fundamentally different when the goods they're buying are motherfucking elections!
Do you still not see the analogy?
They are "buying" our elections by e.g. influencing American citizens to promote BLM on social media. It's almost like you haven't actually read anything on the influence campaign and just assume a Russian NGO dropped money bags off to the Politics Office.
It wasn't only advertising (which is not wholly unprotected). Which is what I am trying to explain to you. The influence campaign also involved US citizens engaging in political speech on social media pushing narratives that the influence campaign wanted, wittingly and unwittingly. That is more insidious and also a dangerous area for the state to step into.
The current elite position is already roughly "if you oppose our politics you're a foreign agent and a traitor and you want our troops to die and the end of democracy". And establishment voters eat it up. Even on this forum. And that's before giving the state the power to prosecute citizens for engaging in political speech because it is e.g. in the interest of a foreign adversary to promote black American identity politics and BLM for the purposes of political division.
The problem there is that the bot posts are generally coming from overseas. Regulating advertisements is easier, as Facebook is meaningfully subject to the laws of the United States in a way that someone sitting in front of a computer in Russia is not.
The cynic in me thinks they don't do anything about them systematically because it makes it look like the platform isn't as in-use as people think. There's already enough of a stink made every time Twitter makes a sweep for fake / artificial accounts used to boost follow counts.
Would this actually do anything? If a foreign country is running an influence campaign to interfere in US elections, why would they care about how US law views that activity?
One imagines the law affects the people/company running the ad in America. With say, rather draconian penalties. Facebook would have to say which adds were paid for by Russian/Iranian/Chinese/etc (probably every other country on God's Green Earth except for Easter Island) money.
Of course this leads up to the problems of Super PACs and dark money. That shit has to get fixed as well.
No. The foreign influence campaign did not involve US citizens engaging in political speech on social media pushing the narratives that the influence campaigns wanted out of the fucking blue. As if the foreign influence campaign did not do things that caused that to happen, for that express purpose. As if they did not advertise with the intent that that would happen. As if their paying people to represent themselves as authentic and spread your message isn't an advertising method...
Does this make no sense to you? The foreign influence campaigns did not consist of people doing nothing and then being pleasantly surprised when Americans picked up the narrates they wanted pushed. They did the thing. They pushed the narratives. And saying "well they produced measurable deliverables as a result of their actions" doesn't mean that we cannot work to prevent the thing that actually produced those measurable deliverables.
Your argument here is "we cannot possibly regulate this activity because this activity succeeded"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You could still post, e.g., religious doctrine (because it's not demonstrably false), but you couldn't make a post claiming Obama doesn't have a birth certificate or vaccines cause autism or the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint or whatever.
We can't right now, so it's moot. But the idea is setting off authoritarian alarm bells (edit: for me), and I'm not sure exactly why; so I'm wondering what other people think.
I do think banning hate speech would be a good thing, though. Other countries have already done it, so we know it's doable.
Banning people from lying? I can think of a few scenarios where that could be very bad.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't actually think so.
The existence of God(s) is impossible to prove or disprove, as is what he/she/they think about anything. And you can always preface statements with "I believe" or "my church believes."
What if you limit it to banning lying with the intent to influence public behavior? That seems closer to the fighting words standard.
I worked on a project that involved this topic for .gov. Yes, it is a vulnerability just as any domestic freedom is a vulnerability an adversary government can exploit. No, I do not think the state moving to restrict speech of US citizens because that speech is in the interest of a foreign adversary is a good idea.
So your answer is "well it sucks that foreign governments are interfering with our elections, but it would be worse to do something about it?"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If it stopped at facebook style quasi-censoring (graying out with a "this is false and here's why" link) and only applied to inarguably factually incorrect things then I'd be fine with it. If an individual or organization really regularly falls afoul of that conservative metric then sure, ban 'em. I don't think you even need the "intent to influence public behavior" vaguery. That could be abused and overextended in the wrong hands, admittedly... maybe it's just that I'm tired, but I feel like it's worth trying with that explicitly limited philosophy.
E: I should probably note that I mean all this in the context of social media, since it hasn't come up yet in the quote tree. That is what we're talking about, right?
We have a fundamental disagreement about which should be weighed more heavily: freedom or state security.
Like, how public? Lying about where a protest is going to happen to evade the police or whether you're at home right now to evade a stalker? Lying as part of a scientific study when you plan to disclose the truth as soon as it's finished? Lying as part of performance art because you're Banksy? Lying to a reporter who asked a stupid leading question that could endanger national security? How about a bomb hoax or a suicide threat where the person spreading it earnestly believes it? A conspiracy theory that somebody like Epstein was murdered even though the official government position is that he committed suicide?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It’s required in broadcast media already
What you have is a delusion that we can have free and fair elections without measures taken to curb undue influence by forces both domestic and foreign.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
To be clear, the undue influence you are talking about is political speech conducted by US citizens.
No, I'm talking about a whole host of things being conducted by US citizens. That's in addition to the whole host of things being conducted by foreign entities. As far as the scope of this thread, though, we are focused on the spread of deliberate misinformation.
And to be clear I am against US citizens making up conspiracy theories/lies/etc and signal-boosting them just as much as I am against foreign entities.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar