[tovej]

Censoring foreign political influence and misinformation campaigns is just sane policy.

US misinformation is no different from Russian misinformation. freedom.gov is specifically meant to spread this misinfo, freedom of speech is the stated purpose, but if you believe that, you are naive.

This is obviously an influence campaign.

[JohnLocke4]

How exactly does a proxy spread misinfo? Also, the project isn't even functional yet and appears to have been blocked to avert piracy

[herbst]

How is it a proxy? It's just a boring blank landing page? (Just checking from my European internet connection, without blockage as Spain is not all of Europe.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, it certainly allows and enables the spread of misinformation.

That is, what's blocked? Things that people consider misinformation. Some of it really is, and some of it is just stuff that's politically unpopular with the powers that be (which they're also going to label misinformation). And then some of it falls afoul of various copyright laws or other such.

But certainly real misinformation is a significant chunk of that. The proxy enables that misinformation (and disinformation) to bypass the censorship/blocking. So in that sense, yes, it spreads misinformation.

[JohnLocke4]

I agree. I just don't agree with misinformation not being protected as free speech. Surely having an INGSOC decide what is truthful enough to be shared is detrimental to free expression and thought. Heliocentrism was also misinformation at one point.

[terminalshort]

Things that allow and enable the spread of misinformation:

- pen and paper

- the printing press

- the telegraph

- radio

- television

- the internet

[rvnx]

It has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

The solution to disinformation is not censorship, it's education and to teach early people on how to critically think by themselves.

[SpecialistK]

It's "thoughtcrime" and "censorship" when they do it. It's "stopping disinformation" and "protecting democracy" when we do it.

[bigstrat2003]

That is unfortunately the truth of it. There are distressingly few people in the US these days who actually have a principled belief in freedom of speech. Both the left and the right talk up freedom of speech when they are out of power, but are quite willing to destroy it when they are in power. I would give my left proverbial for a political party that actually protects freedom of speech.

[rockemsockem]

I think the people blocking content in Europe and those "protecting democracy" in the US share most of the same political beliefs.

[tovej]

ATM, nobody is blocking any actual content unless it breaks very specific laws, like CSAM.

[tovej]

Oh please. If a known bad actor is trying to influence your polity, the best solution is to block them.

This does not mean people should not also be educated. That critical thinking is also what leads me to the conclusion this should be blocked.

[13415]

Believe it or not, removal of content is mandated on the basis of laws that have been passed by the majority of representatives elected by the people. For example, it is a crime in Germany to publicly glorify wars of aggression and use Nazi symbols or deny the Holocaust. It's also a crime to publish child abuse material.

On a side note, setting up a website deliberately designed to circumvent such laws will itself likely violate the law and might lead to criminal prosecution. While the US government will certainly be protected by diplomatic immunity, other people involved probably won't be protected.

[AnnikaL]

Should the Spanish government decide what is "misinformation"? Should it be forbidden to read false or misleading statements on the Internet?

[refurb]

> Censoring foreign political influence and misinformation campaigns is just sane policy.

That would be true if there were objective definitions of "foreign political influence" and "misinformation campaigns".

But there isn't. One can wave their hands and say any information falls into those categories.

[tovej]

What rubbish. A foreign bad actor declares they specifically want to feed your people propaganda through a specific communication channel. Do you need more than two brain cells to decide whether that's an influence campaign?

[refurb]

What is rubbish is your inability to see the subjectivity in “bad actor” and “influence campaign”.

I can wave my hand and make that claim about anything.

“Oh those evil Americans and their influence campaign on free speech rights!”

[rockemsockem]

This is of course an influence campaign, just like government ads to get people not to smoke are influence campaigns, but where's the misinformation?