Comment on In Stunning Letter To Congress, Zuckerberg Admits Biden-Harris Pressured Facebook To Censor Content

• pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I believe disinformation (not misinformation) that endangered lives should be illegal, yes.

  If someone posts a video that purposefully tells people to do something that endangers lives and makes it look good/safe, that person should face penalties of fines or jail time functional of how dangerous their recommendation was.

  As for the laptop, I’m not dismissing anything.

  It’s 100% an entirely unrelated anecdote that was mentioned as a totally seperate and discrete event in the letter, that has nothing to do with the headline.

  The article used vague wording to try and jumble the two seperate events together and make it sound like they were one event that occurred, which us extremely shitty journalism.

  Stop falling for such obvious bullshit and go read the original source.

  I have no issue with governments cracking down on disinformation. It’s a huge problem and should carry extremely heavy penalties if it causes harm.

  source

  • jimbolauski@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I believe disinformation (not misinformation) that endangered lives should be illegal, yes.

    Who determines what is disinformation?

    Who determines that the information is endangering lives?

    If Trump wins the election do you want him determining these things?

    source

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Who determines what is disinformation?

      A jury, for a given case

      Who determines that the information is endangering lives?

      A jury, for a given case

      If Trump wins the election do you want him determining these things?

      I wouldn’t put it past him to try and do that, knowing him.

      But that’s not how laws work. Determining if a given case is or is not disinformation would be up to a jury to deliberate, based on facts presented by the lawyers.

      As that’s how the justice system works. Or us supposed to at least.

      And yes, proving it is disinformation is super hard, so the prosecutor must have a pretty iron tight case. You’d likely need witnesses that can attest to the defendant outright admitting to the act, or their behaviors that signal intent, or evidence on their devices, etc.

      This is exactly how Libel and Slander / Defamation cases work right now, you have to prove the defendant knew they were lying and or making a story up intentionally which is incredibly hard, cuz the dependant can just go “I really thought that was the truth!”

      For example in the Heard v Depp case, they had to pull evidence of her doctoring photos and using makeup to really sell the case and win the jury over.

      So it’s a huge gap to cross…

      But…

      If you do cross it, I believe the penalty for it should be pretty severe. Especially if the defendant was:

      1. Endangering people’s lives with bad advice And/Or
      2. Posing as an expert without actually being one

      IE those people that dress up like a doctor or nurse or etc and then sell extremely bullshit stuff on social media. That should straight up result in some prison time if they gave out genuinely harmful disinformation.

      source

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Before a case makes it to a jury a federal prosecutor has to press charges, the prosecutor can decide which cases to take up and where to prosecute. If Trump wins his appointed prosecutors will go after democrats in Republican stronghold venues.

        source