[FirmwareBurner]

Indeed. I'm European and I also see the EU's "banning of disinformation" as a form of censorship in gift wrapping. What about the government disinformation during covid? Did they punish anyone for that?

Vague and ambiguous laws like these against disinformation enable selective enforcement for the governments to make sure their PoVs go though the media and everything they deem inappropriate or a threat to their authority gets shut down.

Those in power in Brussels are afraid of communication channels they can't control as people become more and more dissatisfied and irate with their leaders, policies and QoL reductions, so they push laws like these plus the ones trying to backdoor encrypted communications in order to gain control over the narrative, monitor and crush any potential uprisings before they even occur.

[immibis]

I'd love to hear your better idea to deal with disinformation. The free marketplace of ideas has obviously not worked. Maybe even better public education could work, and then they wouldn't need to censor it because nobody would believe it anyway?

[FirmwareBurner]

>I'd love to hear your better idea to deal with disinformation.

There is no silver bullet solution since we're not in an utopia. On the one hand all private media is controlled by biased oligarchs each with their own interests. On the other hand, governments in power want to control the narrative towards their own interests hence why in many EU countries we have state media. This is how it's always been and how it's always gonna be, a constant tug of war between interest groups, but I don't want any one side to have complete control of the media as that would be even worse.

>The free marketplace of ideas has obviously not worked.

Why do you think it hasn't worked? To me it seems like it's working, that's why those in power fear it and want to control it all for themselves.

My parents lived under communism. The speech control the EU is pushing resembles very well what communism had but with a better PR spin on it. Communism got defeated in part by total freedom of speech winning in the free market place of ideas versus government controlled speech. The Arab Spring revolutions could not have happened without the free media circulating on the internet. So to see the EU trying to lock down on free speech the same way totalitarian regime did, is incredibly suspicious to me like their afraid of their own people revolting against them.

I don't want unelected elites in Brussels deciding for me what content and opinions I should be allowed to view. If you want to win in the free marketplace of ideas, then come up with arguments for the people on why you consider each piece of information to be misinformation and debate it in public, not just ban it outright.

[immibis]

The free marketplace idea obviously has not worked to combat disinformation, because we're trying the radical free marketplace idea and so many people are believing so much disinformation that they're threatening to destroy every western country. One of them is already destroying itself, not just threatening to.

[FirmwareBurner]

>many people are believing so much disinformation

That is a symptom, not a cause. That means education system is bad and has failed people, OR, that people are so desperate with their living standards that they're not disinformed but they just want to take revenge on the establishment that has failed them by voting extremes.

Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause so I don't believe government enforced censorship is the solution because that's exactly what totalitarian regimes did when people were unhappy. The solution is for the establishment to accept they have failed the people and start to do good for the people or step down.

This means the democratic system IS working as intended, as if you were to censor speech and take away peoples' only legal way of protesting (voting), then their next alternatives is violence and uprising.

[tpm]

> That means education system is bad and has failed people

What if the education system can't fix this? Not just the current one - any education system.

> that people are so desperate with their living standards

What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation?

> Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause

What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause? You have failed to prove it isn't, so your proposed solutions probably won't work and indeed may make matters much worse.

[FirmwareBurner]

>What if the education system can't fix this?

If your nation's education is so bad that 51% of the population buys into disinformation with no way of convincing them otherwise, then you'll have to accept you're doomed as a country and deserve that fate. Might as well give up on democracy and anoint an emperor or king to rule over you, because there's no point in cosplaying as a democracy if you're not planning to respect the will of the majority at the elections.

>Not just the current one - any education system.

Switzerland and nordic countries like Denmark seem to be quite well educated, highly transparent, low corruption and a decent democracy. So it is possible.

>What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation?

People's political biases are ALWAYS tied to their wealth, education and social class. Just compare a map with wealth/income distribution with a map with blue/red voters.

>What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause?

Look in the mirror.

[immibis]

You still didn't tell me what you think should be done about it. I understand from your vague gestures that the answer is "nothing", perhaps because you enjoy the fact that developed world powers are crumbling to dust. There are reasonable reasons one might hold that position, but if that is in fact your position, you should acknowledge it.

> I don't believe [X] is the solution because that's exactly what totalitarian regimes did

Hitler also ate sugar. Ban sugar!

> The solution is for the establishment to accept they have failed the people and start to do good for the people or step down.

This contradicts your stated position, because preventing disinformation is good for the people, but you don't think the establishment should do it.

> This means the democratic system IS working as intended, as if you were to censor speech and take away peoples' only legal way of protesting (voting)

Very obvious non-sequitur. What do penalties against the app formerly known as Twitter have to do with taking away voting rights?

[FirmwareBurner]

This comment is not in good faith so I won't entertain it further.

[bgarbiak]

I remember the communism. Boy, you have no idea. And, frankly, your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive.

[FirmwareBurner]

>Boy, you have no idea.

Why? What did I miss?

>your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive

That's how boiling the frog works. Where do you think you'll end up if you give the government authority to decide what information is right or wrong for you to have access to?

What happens when Ursula v.d Leyen decides that her scandal involving the deleted email is "disinformation" and has a friendly judge call for it to be scrubbed from media and search engines?

You can't and should never blindly trust governments with them having your well being at heart. The main goal of a government is to stay in power, by any mean necessary in order to help those who finance their careers and campaigns.

If you can't see the slope between this speech police path and becoming an USSR-Light minus the gulags and executions, then maybe you're the offensive one.

[tpm]

> That's how boiling the frog works.

that's also how the slippery slope fallacy works

[FirmwareBurner]

Hitler seizing power and the Nazis invading Poland was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. The NSA spying on everyone was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. Go back in time and find other examples.

Any extreme powers you give the government to "keep you safe", they will eventually be abused, first against foreigners, political dissidents and whistleblowers, then against you.

History doesn't necessarily repat itself, but it definitely rhymes.

[mike_hearn]

Technically, "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy. It's just a name for the idea that one thing leads inevitably to another. It's not fallacious to extrapolate from past experience, even if that extrapolation turns out to be wrong.

[nradov]

Your comment is disinformation. This is not a problem that needs to be fixed. There is no need for governments to force private companies to act as censors. The free marketplace of ideas is working better than ever.

If you're unhappy with the current situation then do something positive by working to improve critical thinking education in your own country's schools.