Do you think that anything at all should be done to fight foreign actor disinformation?

Yes. Focus on education and providing more information, not suppressing the information you don't like.

> Focus on education and providing more information, not suppressing the information you don't like.

A, too many people follow Steve Bannon's strategy of (his literal words) "flood the zone with shit."

B, purveyors of disinformation are thieves — they steal the time of people who take seriously the need to figure out what's true when, say, voting.

C, the Federal Trade Commission goes after people for false advertising, so it's already established that we don't allow people to say absolutely anything they feel like without government interference.

One of the many question marks with your viewpoint is "How much of what is labeled foreign actor disinformation is actually foreign actor disinformation?"

During much of the last few years, heaps of undesirable stories were labeled by the media or big tech as "foreign bot propaganda" with no proof provided, and a large chunk of even the tech-savvy public bought these claims at face value even though there are methods that could be used to largely verify these claims that were never provided.

It would be trivial for an authoritarian government to label any inconvenient story as "boosted by foreign bots" and totally manipulate and control the news while pretending to "fight foreign disinformation".

As much as what was done to fight the disinformation done by NYT, CNN et al during the nonexistent Iraqi WMDs lie.

This is a strawman argument. We are talking about the US Government censoring the speech of US citizens because they don't like it.

Unlike DeSantis's Stop WOKE law, these documents do not give the government the power to compel social media companies or anybody else to remove posts. This seems like it will hold up against the legal challenges that Stop WOKE failed.

Which article are you reading?

Yes absolutely. The government should be spending a lot of time writing very carefully worded press releases that encourage you to research facts, question their pronouncements, and wording all of their releases with a healthy dose of "I am not certain, but we believe" in order to rebuild the public trust.

That will go much farther towards combating misinformation then trying to suppress even outright lies by force.

It's so funny that you say all this because I do not see where the DHS gets the power to suppress anything??

The power? Which form of power are you referring to?

The power of law? That's very clearly "Nowhere". Taking down Facebook posts is not authorized by law, and is not compatible with the First Amendment (though to be clear: The Bill of Rights does not create or codify our rights; It just enumerates them). It is in executive policy, which should be having repercussions such as prosecution and censure, and it's a failure of our legislative and judicial branches that there's not been such.

The power of force? They're literally a federal law enforcement department. They have guns and ammo and the training and experience to use them. They will arrest you if you wink at them funny while trying to board a plane.

The power of precedent? They're setting it right now. There were a set of leaked e-mails of government officials getting obsequious replies when asking Facebook for posts to be taken down for "Misinformation". I'm not even against the government pointing out posts that violate Facebook guidelines; I just think they should get the same canned responses that everyone else gets.

It does not help that a key campaigning strategy from the sitting president was suppressing an embarrassing story. I would have had some respect if Biden had come out and said "My No-Account son is trying to profit from my name, and I apologize for that". I have no respect for the sitting president nor the previous.

You are overreacting. The government gave social media companies a list of posts they thought were misinformation.

Fighting it with correct information is the classic method.

Doesn't work. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

Then we go down with the ship.

Liberalism in general never worked before the U.S.A. and has never worked for more than a few decades anywhere else.

> Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law

Giving up liberalism just because an illiberal country is producing propaganda seems... stupid.

Also liberalism continues to power the most peaceful and prosperous regions in the world. Giving up on it because illiberalism is on the rise is equally as stupid.

Maybe I worded that poorly, but I was advocating for holding onto liberalism (the "ship") even if it seems to be failing us ("going down").

So, I agree.

> Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…

The fact that Jonathan Swift was already complaining about this in 1710, should make us more skeptical of the idea that the internet or social media is this unique threat, that older ideas about freedom of speech don't apply anymore.

That seems to be not as effective as desired.

Why is it the federal governments job? Platforms were already removing actual calls to violence and terrorist propaganda in 2014, what happened was that since 2016 a whole new censorship apparatus was created that was substantially broader than anything seen before not due to new regulations (first amendments is still here) but various extrajudicial mechanisms including senate hearings, “friendly” knocks from DHS agents and the whole 9 yards. Daniel Ellsberg today would be Russian misinformation for saying that America had been bombing Cambodia too.

I reject that framing. I reject the idea that there this clearly defined thing - disinformation - and the question is how to fight it.

The right framing is: How do we figure out the truth? By letting everyone argue about it, on platforms like twitter, or by entrusting that to a bunch of bureaucrats, who then share their findings and censor anyone who disagrees?

>should be facing years in prison and brutal fines for even suggesting

I love the irony of this statement. You are such an advocate of free speech that you believe suggesting alterations to free speech should be punishable by prison time. Free speech is so important that we must restrict speech to protect free speech.

When you become a government actor you swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. In your official capacity, it does seem conflicted to then engage in behavior that suggests limitation of the rights granted by the constitution.

As a private citizen, do what you want, but I think this is understood by the context of the OP.

OP used "suggesting" which i take as speech and you used "engage in behavior" which i take as action for me, the difference between speech and action is at the crux of the issue

We can't be silly; suggesting is behavior. If a cop suggests you put the gun down, that's an act that had better be responded to.

I can't say I agree with that logic. Would you say that any government official who advocated for the repeal of the 18th Amendment was violating their oath of office to defend the constitution?

It seems imperative that government officials need to be able to openly discuss the meaning of laws and whether those laws are appropriate without fear of punishment for that discussion.

> Would you say that any government official who advocated for the repeal of the 18th Amendment was violating their oath of office to defend the constitution?

Yes. Just because you happen to agree with them is not an excuse. The constitution belongs to the States and is ratified solely by them, not the Federal government.

A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so.

> It seems imperative that government officials

It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters.

>A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so.

I guess FDR and many other politicians should have been thrown in prison.

>It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters.

How do the administrative officials implement the legislation without offering official opinions on what that legislation means? Don't they need to be able to discuss the details without worrying about prison?

> I guess FDR and many other politicians should have been thrown in prison

For campaign speeches before he was even in office? That's ridiculous. Once in office he used standard administrative procedure to get his way.. it probably helped that literally one month after being in office Congress, who has the right to do so, proposed the 21st amendment. This is a pretty thin example.

> How do the administrative officials implement the legislation without offering official opinions on what that legislation means?

They hire lawyers and consult with them _privately_. None of this has anything to do with using the power of your office to _advocate_ for a specific position.

> Don't they need to be able to discuss the details without worrying about prison?

Can they discuss food safety without implicating the first amendment? I obviously think they can, particularly through very broad administrative procedures already laid out by congress. This is just picking up goalposts and moving them. This argument was pretty narrowly constrained, if not slightly unhinged, to begin with.

As a rule, can we avoid dealing in absolutes? Implying that the FDA should have no input whatsoever on laws regarding food safety regulation seems a little odd given that they would represent 90% of the relevant experts.

>I love the irony of this statement.

How is it irony?

The first amendment:

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Has only been expanded by the courts to apply to all levels and branches of government, and they're not allowed to outsource (14thS1) it and very clearly says that the government cannot abridge speech. Which is exactly what DHS was conspiring to do with big tech.

People get free speech. The government does get a say in the matter. People who are acting members of the government being held accountable for violation of the 1st amendment is a great way to illustrate the difference between free speech and the first amendment.

If this were only big tech/other companies the first amendment wouldn't apply and your comment would have merit, but with the DHS involved this is just wildly unconstitional and there's nothing ironic about it.

The government already restricts speech. Libel is an obvious example. We therefore need to debate what the concept of free speech actually means and what the practical implications of the 1st Amendment are because they clearly don't mean that speech is completely unrestricted.

OP is suggesting that anyone who comes to that debate with definitions that are more restrictive than OPs should end up in prison. How is that not inherently a restriction on the speech that one can make about free speech?

It's already the law, it would just be better if the higher penalties applied to all civil rights violations and not just those that involve physical assault. The problem is that the DOJ is heavily politicized and won't proceed with charges.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245

Discussing the definition of specific rights is not the same thing as actively depriving people of those rights. You are equating speech and debate with action.

It's not ironic, you are twisting words. They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens. If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence?

>They're pinpointing a specific set of entities who should be very careful about making certain discussions not included in these entities are individual citizens.

Who do you think makes up these "specific set of entities" if not "individual citizens"?

>If a case has been decided that indicates a specific set of actions are civil rights violations, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting, its ok to violate precedent over and over again without consequence?

But OP didn't say the trigger for consequences would be the violation of civil rights. They said that the suggestion was enough to deserve a punishment. They want the speech punished, not action.

Public servants, not individual citizens. The individual citizens are incidental and not important.

DHS is a public institution staffed by government agents acting as public servants, not as individual citizens.

OP specifically referenced this applying to both government agents and private entities.

OP only mentioned private entities conspiring with the government to violate the constitutional civil right to free speech. Context.

Are you suggesting that I as an individual lose rights if my employer starts working with the government?

Of course you do. You probably lost rights before then if you signed an employment contract, and your employer lost rights when they started working with the government. You lost rights the first time you registered with paypal or facebook (forced arbitration clauses.) You lost rights when you signed your lease.

I don't understand what's supposed to be shocking here. There's this phrasing that seems to indicate that this is an absurd situation rather than a commonplace one.

Yes, obviously. That's how it works.

It just seems weird to suggest that I can be like a random IT worker at some tech company and can post something like "All hate speech should be illegal" and that will be fine. Then my company signs some contract with the government and suddenly tweeting that again would result in prison time.

is "conspiring" somewhere between speech and action or is it firmly within one or the other ?

GP didn't use the word conspiring, I did. But to answer your question, conspiracy is an expression of intent. It can be merely speech but usually involves some action to back up the speech. Because, again, conspiracy is a question of establishing intent.

For example, three people discussing plans for a bank robbery are conspiring. Likewise, the same three people sharing only a knowing glance before splitting up and regrouping with masks, guns, a car and a map with the local bank circled have also conspired to rob a bank. One group only spoke and the other didn't speak, yet both conspired.

Isn't that just a variation on the paradox of tolerance, though? If we tolerate government entities pushing ideas to restrict the speech of citizens, we are going to lose our freedom of speech.

"At this point any GOVERNMENT ACTOR, or private sector entity WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT..."

You missed that part. The Bill of Rights is (or at least was) a list of things the Government can't do.

This is such a bad comment. Nobody is suggesting free speech for government employees during the performance of their jobs. Would you think it was ironic that somebody who supported the 1st Amendment would object to the FBI writing letters to MLK convincing him to kill himself? Would that be something you loved, or not?

Where is prior restraint being suggested?

It's not just a suggestion. During the pandemic multiple government agencies worked with social media services to remove content that was not in line with official statements and ban people who made such posts/comments.

Psaki actually admitted it in July 2021.

There is no law that gives the government power to restrain speech. Where do you see the government restraining speech?

>There is no law that gives the government power to restrain speech.

All government actors are subject to the constitution and criminal and civil statutes. If they violate them, they can be charged even in the absence of a statute that says they can commit said violation. See Derek Chauvin and the other officers who recently were convicted of violating George Floyd's civil rights.

>Where do you see the government restraining speech?

When they arranged a contact at social media giants to whom they can report content to be removed.

this is where things get trickier for me. don't all the social media giants have rights to free speech as well, allowing them to do whatever they want with regards to promoting / disseminating content on their site ? it seems like the government is not forcing them to do anything, it seems like the companies are the one's taking action since the government portal is just to make requests. there might be nuance here if the company allows a government official to remove content directly but even then it might still be legal. can you prevent a private company / individual from giving someone else control over their speech ?

within that context though, perhaps you are saying that it is or should be illegal for government employees to ask . . . i'll have to think some more about what my opinion is there, i have no idea what the laws are around something like that. as a hyperbolic extrapolation, since you mention police, is it or should it be illegal for a police officer to ask someone not to call them a mean word ?

>When they arranged a contact at social media giants to whom they can report content to be removed.

What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The government has long identified speech it disagrees with and I'm really hard pressed to believe you think this is something the government can't do?

>All government actors are subject to the constitution and criminal and civil statutes. If they violate them, they can be charged even in the absence of a statute that says they can commit said violation. See Derek Chauvin and the other officers who recently were convicted of violating George Floyd's civil rights.

Oh, I thought you were saying this empowers them to.

>What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The government has long identified speech it disagrees with and I'm really hard pressed to believe you think this is something the government can't do?

It shows collusion. The government saying so and so said something we disagree with is fine. The government working hand in hand with a third party to prevent someone from speaking is no different than the government stopping the speech directly.

I'm positive that emailing that list to someone does not make it a violation of the first amendment. There's nothing secret or illegal about it either, so I don't think collusion is the word you are looking for. Now an agreement between Twitter and the executive branch, that Twitter would do everything asked of them would maybe make your point. Of course, that's exactly what's missing.