[km3r]

As another commenter mentioned, we are adjusting to a new form of information flow now in the post social media age. What was easily disproven and dismissed 20 years ago, now is amplified by radicals. I don't think banning the speech is the right choice but we need someway to counter misinformation. Its 100x easier to come up with these lies then it is to dispel them. The information war is already heavily on the side of misinformation. Clearly with the rise of Qanan, antifa, and even yesterdays events, our current approach is not work. I am all ears to hear better solutions but trusting people to be able to navigate the sea of misinformation to the island of truth leads to many shipwrecks.

[mistermann]

> I am all ears to hear better solutions

I've offered an idea for an experiment that could plausibly lead to a (partial) solution here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662949

[core-questions]

What if I think it doesn't matter at all whether people believe the correct, government-approved, blue-checkmark truth vs. their own interpretation? Since when do we all have to believe the same things for the world to function?

You sound like a high-church advocate getting mad that angry parishioners have started to question the orthodoxy. You should understand that America was founded on that kind of questioning and that kind of rejection of power in favour of open discourse, even by people who are wrong.

> amplified by radicals

Meanwhile the propaganda side is amplified by the people who own the media; ten thousand times louder than any dissident.

I pray this sort of thing just ends up pushing people towards decentralized platforms where they can speak their mind without censors, moderators, and goody-two-shoes apparatchiks complaining about "misinformation". It's so patronizing.

[chillwaves]

I agree, hopefully they will leave the social media sites into their own decentralized camps. Sounds like a win for all sides. No more megaphone amplifying ideas that don't have the native support to deserve it.

The rest of us will stay secure in our belief that Coronavirus is real, that 5G isn't a government conspiracy, and that Donald Trump lost the election.

Each of those three items have very specific dangerous implications for the people spreading disinfo about them.

Seems like an easy wedge to exploit if you were a hostile country looking to conduct psyops on America. Did you consider the wider security implications of half the country no longer believing in fair elections?

[core-questions]

> the rest of us will stay secure in our belief that Coronavirus is real, that 5G isn't a government conspiracy, and that Donald Trump lost the election.

Saying this demonstrates the false dichotomy. I believe all of those things, too. Guess what: I also believe that flyover Americans deserve a shot at the world their forefathers were working toward. Wedges have been put into place to make it difficult to hold a position like this politically; who represents me?

> Seems like an easy wedge to exploit if you were a hostile country looking to conduct psyops on America.

Which country is that, and why make the assumption that it comes from outside your own borders?

> Did you consider the wider security implications of half the country no longer believing in fair elections?

Seems like this is a mandate to produce a more secure election. Shouldn't that make both sides happier? Isn't it possible to believe that the election systems are rife with opportunities for fraud and miscounts? Did you live through the 2000 Gore/Bush election? America can do better.