As a non-MAGA republican, I am beginning to greatly resent the low-zero information people who can't be bothered to take a minute or two of their time to learn the facts, and instead just believe the absurd crap being spewed by Trump and his RWM cronies. Get a clue, folks!! Ignorance is not a lifestyle!
My fear is that if Trump gets back into the White House, will he EVER tell us the truth? Why would he start now? If inflation goes up because of his tariffs, he'll just tell us not to believe the higher cost of groceries. He'll say they're cheaper now than they were under Biden...even if it's easily debunkable. And I'm sure his supporters will nod in agreement.
Remember the good old days of the Fairness Doctrine? Reagan got rid of it, and some version of it should return. Next we need to reign in the Wild West of social media. Europe has some rules about it (of course the Tech Bros clutch pearls and cry "censorship!!"). Post-truth is anti-democratic.
Be very careful about wanting the government to regulate speech. The next speech "regulated" may be your own.
> UK authorities threaten extradition, jail to US citizens for online posts stoking riots
> A Sky News reporter asked London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley about posts made by Elon Musk. Rowley responded, "We will throw the full force of the law at people and whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online we will come after you." UK authorities have already arrested their citizens for online activity, for example, a 55-year-old woman was arrested for "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred” and “false communication.” Two other British men were also arrested for similar social media posts.
> UK: Mother Arrested in Front of Children for Calling Trans Activist a Man on Twitter
> British police arrested a mother in front of her children for calling a trans activist a man in a Twitter argument, with a judge subsequently issuing an injunction banning her from referring to the person’s “former male identity”.
Well, there already is some reasonable censorship under the first amendment in the USA. One is defamation. Another is child pornography. Another is speech that can lead to an immediate risk of harm ("yelling fire in the theater"). I think there are ways to craft restrictions on speech that do not result in ridiculous outcomes and still provide some guardrails on the Elon Musks of the world.
Well let me know when you have an actual written detailed proposal.
History shows that it doesn't work the way you want it to. Those in power (with the power of censorship) will ALWAYS eventually use it to cover up their own foibles, and to suppress their political enemies. It ALWAYS turns out that way, it's part of human nature.
The problem is, as Mark Twain said "“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Now even more true. The law is all about balancing interests. Itʻs not a precise science but there are ways to fashion rules that balance interests fairly. For example, what is the social value of a lie as compared to the injury that is reasonably foreseeable to the party being lied about? A specific example: Is is more important for Vance and Trump to be able to freely lie about Haitians or for Haitians to feel safe and secure from baseless lies that are more than foreseeable to cause them harm? (Taking judicial notice of the bomb threats in this case). It can be argued both ways depending on your point of view. Who has the larger platform in this situation? Obviously Trump and Vance. Shouldnʻt society hold them to some standard of truthfulness?
Some off the cuff comments: Social media is still in its relative infancy, and there are many smart people in the world who are probably already working on ways to corral social media without overstepping. Yes, itʻs not a situation that lends itself to a list of rules, except on the extreme end. Rarely would criminal law be necessary - kiddie porn, snuff videos, postings of those nature could result in criminal charges. Yes, some people may think a snuff video is a form of protected artistic expression, but there are also social norms that itʻs not unreasonable to use as reference points. One first step - repeal the law that gives social media platforms immunity from suits based on what is posted. That will provide the incentive for the platforms to expend resourses in monitoring content. Although it is slow, use the civil court system the way we do now to determine if a lie is serious. E Jean Carroll won a defamation suit based on a Trump lie (that was repeated over and over again). Or, create a binding arbitration board to review issues, provide guidance, and perhaps award damages. Mandate an "equal time" mechanism on social media that is meaningful rather than relying on other users to "like" or "retweet" information that rebuts lies. Have a more robust method of labelling content that violates content policies. Of course the tech bros will whine and complain about any restrictions but we donʻt live in a libertarian paradise on a day to day basis. There are plenty of rules that we are all willing to follow for the better good.
Are Republicans intellectually challenged? Does the media push Trump’s false information? In this era of partisan politics, do Americans believe what they want to believe to justify their prejudices?
The one that gets me is the cats and dogs story. It is so easily debunked. The Springfield Police said they are not getting any calls about this. That should settle it. If you kill and eat my dog, not only am I going to try to shorten your career as a human, I most certainly am going to call the police.
And might I add, the frustrating thing to me is that he only has to say something and his fans believe every word of it. No fact checking. Nothing. It's just true. Bizarre and sad.
The part that upsets me the most is that the people who being the false information vote, and usually vote at a higher percentage than those who do no believe this mis-information. Maybe I am wrong, but in my area of the world, that is a true statement.
It is scary how misinformation is spread and even when it is fact checked people do not change their opinion. What does our country have to do to stop all the misinformation?
Interesting that you would post this the day after the two emails from the individuals on why it made sense to vote for trump, and why his voters are neither all stupid or racist (I would also throw in or incredibly selfish). At some point, you have to admit that maybe its not "all," but certainly a large portion are, given that the man has been found civilly liable for sexual assault, attacked our democracy, repeatedly says things that are both stupid and demonstrably false, and is just a terrible human being.
The Daily podcast on Springfield was great. When the city promoted for new businesses come and they did, what did they expect would happen to the town? Let's start with USA migration. We move where there are jobs. Wouldn't the same housing, schools, doctors, shopping, etc issues happen with 15,000 people. Most likely yes. Town was ill prepared for any big population growth. When USA migration didn't happen and the new businesses really need people in the jobs, next up is immigration. With the Haitians it was the same as above issues plus ESL. Yes, one could say ESL is a a big issue, but town would have had issues with growth without the Haitians. Would town folks complain about high rents caused by USA migration? Probably. I did hear one employer say how the Haitians come to work, do the job, and don't bring 'Drama' to the workpkace.
The line that stuck from the podcast for me was from the father: it hurts when you can’t protect your son and hurts when you can’t protect their memory. As a father, I get that.
I don’t have a Spotify account so it would be great if Chris didn’t post from there.
I can never imagine what that family has endured as they were being dragged into a political campaign by his own representative. Father declared himself as a Democrat. I'm truly hoping that Vance just didn't say, he (the father/family) doesn't matter as I can make a great story out of this.
If you spent 100 million with print, billboard, social media and TV and a radio campaign to correct just those falsehoods it might move the numbers a bit. But the cult want to believe the dear leaders words and too many voters are too lazy to seek out the facts or even attempt to insist on the truth from political leaders. Democracy in the USA does seem doomed.
I agree Chris. Yes, this worries me for not only the future of our country but for the future of family relationships in our country. Who wants to interact with family members who live in an alternate reality and don't even believe the same facts that you do?
One small thing that the media could do is to stop saying “there is no evidence supporting…” the really outlandish lies. Just say “this is false”. Too many people hear “there is no evidence supporting…” and they think 2 things - I hate you elitists, and so it’s true but you’re trying to get off on a technicality. I wish this weren’t the case but I’ve come up against this multiple times.
Another reasoned debate in the comment section. I cannot wait for my pal Larry to weigh in here. I think this is more indicative of the right’s distrust of the media more than their blind allegiance to former Pres. Trump. The media’s credibility has really taken a hit over this past decade and with the ability to simply find a “new outlet” that aligns 100% with your beliefs, means that these mainstream polls and new organizations are falling out of favor. A broader debate as to whether that’s good or bad can certainly be argued, but I’m afraid that this is the way things will be moving forward.
Maria Bartiromo said today on Fox that the Sean Diddy Combs story broke yesterday to knock Trump's second assassination attempt off the front page. Without one shred of evidence that this is true. How can Fox continue to daily spew unsubstantiated bullshit? Isn't there an FCC law about boldface lying? Why are they still doing it after they got fined in the Dominion voting machine scandal? And the people that watch Fox "news" believe all this tripe. It's maddening.
As a non-MAGA republican, I am beginning to greatly resent the low-zero information people who can't be bothered to take a minute or two of their time to learn the facts, and instead just believe the absurd crap being spewed by Trump and his RWM cronies. Get a clue, folks!! Ignorance is not a lifestyle!
JD Vance said the quiet part out loud on CNN when he admitted to "creating" stories.
My fear is that if Trump gets back into the White House, will he EVER tell us the truth? Why would he start now? If inflation goes up because of his tariffs, he'll just tell us not to believe the higher cost of groceries. He'll say they're cheaper now than they were under Biden...even if it's easily debunkable. And I'm sure his supporters will nod in agreement.
Remember the good old days of the Fairness Doctrine? Reagan got rid of it, and some version of it should return. Next we need to reign in the Wild West of social media. Europe has some rules about it (of course the Tech Bros clutch pearls and cry "censorship!!"). Post-truth is anti-democratic.
They cry "censorship!!" because it IS censorship.
Be very careful about wanting the government to regulate speech. The next speech "regulated" may be your own.
> UK authorities threaten extradition, jail to US citizens for online posts stoking riots
> A Sky News reporter asked London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley about posts made by Elon Musk. Rowley responded, "We will throw the full force of the law at people and whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online we will come after you." UK authorities have already arrested their citizens for online activity, for example, a 55-year-old woman was arrested for "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred” and “false communication.” Two other British men were also arrested for similar social media posts.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/uk-authorities-threaten-extradition-jail-to-us-citizens-for-online-posts-stoking-riots-social-media-elon-musk-x-stabbing-taylor-swift-themed-event-children-dead-prime-minister-police-laws-free-speech
> UK: Mother Arrested in Front of Children for Calling Trans Activist a Man on Twitter
> British police arrested a mother in front of her children for calling a trans activist a man in a Twitter argument, with a judge subsequently issuing an injunction banning her from referring to the person’s “former male identity”.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/10/uk-mother-arrested-in-front-of-children-for-calling-trans-person-a-man-on-twitter/
Well, there already is some reasonable censorship under the first amendment in the USA. One is defamation. Another is child pornography. Another is speech that can lead to an immediate risk of harm ("yelling fire in the theater"). I think there are ways to craft restrictions on speech that do not result in ridiculous outcomes and still provide some guardrails on the Elon Musks of the world.
Well let me know when you have an actual written detailed proposal.
History shows that it doesn't work the way you want it to. Those in power (with the power of censorship) will ALWAYS eventually use it to cover up their own foibles, and to suppress their political enemies. It ALWAYS turns out that way, it's part of human nature.
The problem is, as Mark Twain said "“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Now even more true. The law is all about balancing interests. Itʻs not a precise science but there are ways to fashion rules that balance interests fairly. For example, what is the social value of a lie as compared to the injury that is reasonably foreseeable to the party being lied about? A specific example: Is is more important for Vance and Trump to be able to freely lie about Haitians or for Haitians to feel safe and secure from baseless lies that are more than foreseeable to cause them harm? (Taking judicial notice of the bomb threats in this case). It can be argued both ways depending on your point of view. Who has the larger platform in this situation? Obviously Trump and Vance. Shouldnʻt society hold them to some standard of truthfulness?
How exactly are you going to stop Trump and Vance from lying? Put them in prison? Who decides which lies are that serious?
Some off the cuff comments: Social media is still in its relative infancy, and there are many smart people in the world who are probably already working on ways to corral social media without overstepping. Yes, itʻs not a situation that lends itself to a list of rules, except on the extreme end. Rarely would criminal law be necessary - kiddie porn, snuff videos, postings of those nature could result in criminal charges. Yes, some people may think a snuff video is a form of protected artistic expression, but there are also social norms that itʻs not unreasonable to use as reference points. One first step - repeal the law that gives social media platforms immunity from suits based on what is posted. That will provide the incentive for the platforms to expend resourses in monitoring content. Although it is slow, use the civil court system the way we do now to determine if a lie is serious. E Jean Carroll won a defamation suit based on a Trump lie (that was repeated over and over again). Or, create a binding arbitration board to review issues, provide guidance, and perhaps award damages. Mandate an "equal time" mechanism on social media that is meaningful rather than relying on other users to "like" or "retweet" information that rebuts lies. Have a more robust method of labelling content that violates content policies. Of course the tech bros will whine and complain about any restrictions but we donʻt live in a libertarian paradise on a day to day basis. There are plenty of rules that we are all willing to follow for the better good.
Are Republicans intellectually challenged? Does the media push Trump’s false information? In this era of partisan politics, do Americans believe what they want to believe to justify their prejudices?
Yes to all of the above.
Once again Everyone is entitled to their own opinion Not everyone is entitled to his own facts
Chris, now you know why the MAGA crowd is called dumb and racist. They believe the false and racists position that Trump keeps repeating.
The one that gets me is the cats and dogs story. It is so easily debunked. The Springfield Police said they are not getting any calls about this. That should settle it. If you kill and eat my dog, not only am I going to try to shorten your career as a human, I most certainly am going to call the police.
And might I add, the frustrating thing to me is that he only has to say something and his fans believe every word of it. No fact checking. Nothing. It's just true. Bizarre and sad.
And dangerous!
The Republican Ohio governor says it is not true.
The part that upsets me the most is that the people who being the false information vote, and usually vote at a higher percentage than those who do no believe this mis-information. Maybe I am wrong, but in my area of the world, that is a true statement.
It is scary how misinformation is spread and even when it is fact checked people do not change their opinion. What does our country have to do to stop all the misinformation?
Interesting that you would post this the day after the two emails from the individuals on why it made sense to vote for trump, and why his voters are neither all stupid or racist (I would also throw in or incredibly selfish). At some point, you have to admit that maybe its not "all," but certainly a large portion are, given that the man has been found civilly liable for sexual assault, attacked our democracy, repeatedly says things that are both stupid and demonstrably false, and is just a terrible human being.
The Daily podcast on Springfield was great. When the city promoted for new businesses come and they did, what did they expect would happen to the town? Let's start with USA migration. We move where there are jobs. Wouldn't the same housing, schools, doctors, shopping, etc issues happen with 15,000 people. Most likely yes. Town was ill prepared for any big population growth. When USA migration didn't happen and the new businesses really need people in the jobs, next up is immigration. With the Haitians it was the same as above issues plus ESL. Yes, one could say ESL is a a big issue, but town would have had issues with growth without the Haitians. Would town folks complain about high rents caused by USA migration? Probably. I did hear one employer say how the Haitians come to work, do the job, and don't bring 'Drama' to the workpkace.
The line that stuck from the podcast for me was from the father: it hurts when you can’t protect your son and hurts when you can’t protect their memory. As a father, I get that.
I don’t have a Spotify account so it would be great if Chris didn’t post from there.
Great insight and great podcast
I can never imagine what that family has endured as they were being dragged into a political campaign by his own representative. Father declared himself as a Democrat. I'm truly hoping that Vance just didn't say, he (the father/family) doesn't matter as I can make a great story out of this.
If you spent 100 million with print, billboard, social media and TV and a radio campaign to correct just those falsehoods it might move the numbers a bit. But the cult want to believe the dear leaders words and too many voters are too lazy to seek out the facts or even attempt to insist on the truth from political leaders. Democracy in the USA does seem doomed.
I agree Chris. Yes, this worries me for not only the future of our country but for the future of family relationships in our country. Who wants to interact with family members who live in an alternate reality and don't even believe the same facts that you do?
One small thing that the media could do is to stop saying “there is no evidence supporting…” the really outlandish lies. Just say “this is false”. Too many people hear “there is no evidence supporting…” and they think 2 things - I hate you elitists, and so it’s true but you’re trying to get off on a technicality. I wish this weren’t the case but I’ve come up against this multiple times.
Another reasoned debate in the comment section. I cannot wait for my pal Larry to weigh in here. I think this is more indicative of the right’s distrust of the media more than their blind allegiance to former Pres. Trump. The media’s credibility has really taken a hit over this past decade and with the ability to simply find a “new outlet” that aligns 100% with your beliefs, means that these mainstream polls and new organizations are falling out of favor. A broader debate as to whether that’s good or bad can certainly be argued, but I’m afraid that this is the way things will be moving forward.
Supposed to say “news” organization not “new”. 🤦♂️
Maria Bartiromo said today on Fox that the Sean Diddy Combs story broke yesterday to knock Trump's second assassination attempt off the front page. Without one shred of evidence that this is true. How can Fox continue to daily spew unsubstantiated bullshit? Isn't there an FCC law about boldface lying? Why are they still doing it after they got fined in the Dominion voting machine scandal? And the people that watch Fox "news" believe all this tripe. It's maddening.