"The frustrating absence in the exchange between Hawley and Cox is about the presumption in the category of “disinformation.” "
I was thinking the same thing. Did no one think to mention the countless occasions they got it wrong or the fact that many of the voices they silenced were in fact experts with relevant points of view?
So important a point. Every time we don’t challenge these inaccuracies, the shifting of definitions, or we acquiesce and use their language, we accept to playing the game on their terms. That’s a game we’ve lost before we even start. Accepting the term “disinformation” is like tacit admission, when so much disinformation turned out to just be “the truth.”
We began to lose fifty years ago, when we adopted the language of every "ism" as each took it's place in the media spotlight. Movements like feminism, environmentalism, racism, (and myriad others), rewrote, and are rewriting language(s), and revising definitions to force discussion of any particular cause to assume the legitimacy of that cause. Prior to any discussion. Which renders the discussion moot. Virtually everything we say, or do, today to try to address issues like child mutilation or election integrity are sadly, but rightfully, equated to the deckchair on the Titanic metaphor.
This is the Government as Counter-Reformation Church, without the bother of Devil’s advocate or debate, refutation.
Nothing you know was ever suppressed or banned, declared heterodox or heresy including Galileo (suppressed only after peer review) - only with comprehensive refutation was the error declared and banned.
Contrary to this the error and heresy and arguments and counter arguments and final conclusions were without fail documented then taught to Catholic University students at least through the 1950s - so they would be prepared in arguments to defend the faith, which is how we know about the Gnostics, Arians and the rest 1700 years later.
We all know. Hawley hit the big point, which is the admission by the techturd that it is their policy and practice to work with government to censor speech which neither incites people to immediate violence not panic (which would not be protected speech). The government has no authority whatsoever to regulate "misinformation." On the contrary, it is specifically forbidden to impose what it deems misinformation standards of the day upon or against citizens. And political speech, which covid BS totally was, is the most protected. Hence, even the governmental agencies lies about the vaccines efficacy and safety could be repeated by citizens freely, but so should the truth have been allowed to be spoken, but it was not due to collusion between the Democrat coup de taters and big tech public squares.
Sep 16, 2022·edited Sep 16, 2022Liked by Chris Bray
the whole mis/dis/mal debate is pointless. it doesn’t matter! unless it’s not protected speech, leave users alone. who exactly anointed these idiots arbiters of truth? they cant even define what a woman is without help from a biologist (yes, the same ‘experts’ who need to see the effects of pregnancy hormones on male mice hearts). disinformation does not exist. we have a collection of empirical observations about the world around us. we interpret that data. we get more data and incorporate that into our interpretation. people have varying degrees of ability synthesizing and applying said data. some are better than others. how does the left get away with honoring everyone’s lived experience and truth (at the expense of objectivity) but then turn around and decide the official interpretation of current facts. straight up dumb.
i shouldn’t have to submit empirical proofs to rant incoherently on facebook.
"empirical proofs" are *exactly* what they want to ban! Reality is what ever "they" declare it to be. The omnipresent, omniscient state is the final arbiter of all things.
i would argue that they don’t give a shit about proofs. they aren’t criticizing the methods people use to come to opinions/conclusions. they simply want the ability to ban speech they define (in the moment) as mis/dis/mal. that’s why americans should be able to say whatever they want EVEN if it is unfounded.
"disinformation does not exist. we have a collection of empirical observations about the world around us. we interpret that data. we get more data and incorporate that into our interpretation".
Beautifully put.
Facebook acts like the government talking points just came fresh from the Mint of Truth.
Facebook takes the government say at face value meanwhile in every criminal court case the government must PROVE what is saying is true with EVIDENCE.
Truth is battled for with evidence and different takes of all parties and then put before the a group of 12 jurors to further hash out what may or may not be true, who may be lying, what most plausibly occurred etc...
And sometimes even after that much sifting through things the jury can still get it wrong!
But to facebook
Government information is real information.
Government people can not lie or make mistakes.
(Even though one branch of the government the Supreme Court exists to reverse the mistakes and bad laws laid out by the Legislature and Executive Branch )
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights which is the basis by which the entire government exists can be trampled on if the government people tell us too.
it blows my mind how the left can call the constitution trash, and then demand their rights be honored- the very rights guaranteed ONLY by that very document.
too many corporations (and many citizens that are employed by them) seem to think that the government should have all the answers. including remediating what is perceived as (incorrectly interested data!!!) systemic injustice.
ARTICLE V!!! we need to amend the constitution, because the executive and legislative branches need a little pruning! i want my elected officials to be accountable to US and OUR VOTES! we did not elect any of these 3letter bureaucracies, and our representatives are failing in the obligation to govern, budget and oversee these monstrous institutions!!
"Was every piece of “disinformation” removed from Facebook actually disinformation, or did some of it turn out to be information? Is it correct to say that every claim removed from social media as disinformation was provably incorrect?"
My 2 cents: this is irrelevant to the other First Amendment considerations. People are supposed to be allowed to say stuff free of government interference. Period. Whether it's hate speech, misinformation, disinformation or malinformation -- for the First Amendment that doesn't matter.
By labeling some Americans extremists or domestic terrorists, the government has legal reasoning to censor, harass, arrest, threaten, jail, any and all political opposition, all with the easy assistance of big tech, media, and the courts. If they can mistreat the former president, message loud and clear to everyone, they ca do it to anyone We are now living in tyranny.
Exactly. He was precisely correct.And if we do not do so, then the loss of the Rights given us by G-d will be our fault entirely. They can’t screw us if we don’t bend over. Say “no” loudly and often.And when they hand you the bill, tear it up. And flush it away.
I was referring to this section of Jefferson’s letter to William Stephens Smith
“The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.”
Since it's impossible to decide what's actually true and what's not, what's disinformation or misinformation or unacknowledged truth, then you have to just allow *everything* and let the chips fall where they may.
But wait, that might put too much responsibility on the plebeian class.
Who is this Hawley? I like his demeanor and his line of questioning. EXCEPT, he didn't ask how disinformation is defined. Real disinformation is, "Safe and effective," which has been proven wrong time and again. Dr. Kory saying IVM works if taken in the correct timeframe and dosage, is not.
Facebook's removal of threads and accounts with bona fide statements about successful treatment plans and experiences with the vaccine, in my view, makes it complicit in causing injury and death to many. It was intentional. The fact that the information fed by the CDC and government was actually disinformation is no excuse for Facebook's cupability as Cox himself admitted that this was an unprecedented situation. This would be all the more reason to have free flow of information to discover the truth.
This is very well said. It's an incredibly dark development that we don't all widely share the view that the path to truth is through inquiry and debate.
Someone owes Pope Urban VIII and the Inquisition an apology. I grew up being taught that the Catholic Church had committed a great crime against science by forcing Galileo to recant. It appears they were only way ahead of their time.
So the problem really is how they feel like they are RIGHT in doing this. Sam Harris thought it was MORALLY right to do something legally wrong. This dude felt it was MORALLY right to do something blatantly wrong. It doesn’t matter that what we stifled was truth. And that is what literally keeps me up at night. The truth is irrelevant. IRRELEVANT.
The frustrating absence in the exchange between Hawley and Cox is about the presumption in the category of “disinformation.”
I actually think this is good strategy on Hawley's part. Too often the right goes down the rabbit hole of arguing something like "you were wrong about this being disinformation," and ends up ceding the bigger issue, which is they have no business deciding what is true and what is disinformation, period. In so doing, we win a small battle and lose the bigger war.
Even if someone posts something false or exaggerated, it is protected First Amendment speech. That is the point. It may feel good to point out how wrong their judgments are, but the fact that they are making the judgments at all is the problem.
Censorship goes hand in hand with totalitarianism, corruption, manipulation of public opinion, and usually is a sign of a frightened regime. Are there exceptions to these characteristics? Well yes, for example you shouldn’t be able to destroy somebody’s reputation with lies, but there are laws against that sort of thing. Of course, you need an ethical judiciary to uphold the law.
I was banned from:
Twitter, crime: saying allowing ANTIFA/BLM to riot, loot, commit arson, and kill people was a bad idea for America and could lead to wider violent conflict.
LinkedIn (lol), for saying that the preponderance of scientific evidence suggested the COVID 19 virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute, not from a Burger King with armadillos in the rest rooms. Of course, just before my banishment from the world’s most annoying corporatespeak networking site, a virologist with multiple DoD contracts got into my timeline to argue with me. (That was disturbing.) He didn’t refute my evidence, but just afterward magically I was banished.
WSJ- didn’t actually ban me, just eventually would not let anything I posted appear. Meanwhile paid Leftist trolls, who admitted as much, posted their strident woke dumb crap with impunity.
There are others as well. All of them tell you that you are violating a policy, but you never really know what you did wrong, which means the banishment is arbitrary,partisan, and not motivated by anything most decent people would wish to be associated with.
How much of it is internal censorship versus the administrative state coercion of private enterprises is unknown at this time, but government seems pretty comfy censoring Americans with the “wrong” POV these days.
Actually I’m happier off of most social media. It’s a time suck, rarely is enlightening except for breaking news, which is otherwise available, and tends to bring out the worst in people on all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum.
But we need to defend the Bill of Rights. The Founders were not perfect, nor were they omniscient. But they did better than any other group up to their time in translating a revolution into something positive and enduring, by creating foundational documents around the rights and natural inclinations of a free people. The people we have running the works now are pathetic.
"The frustrating absence in the exchange between Hawley and Cox is about the presumption in the category of “disinformation.” "
I was thinking the same thing. Did no one think to mention the countless occasions they got it wrong or the fact that many of the voices they silenced were in fact experts with relevant points of view?
So important a point. Every time we don’t challenge these inaccuracies, the shifting of definitions, or we acquiesce and use their language, we accept to playing the game on their terms. That’s a game we’ve lost before we even start. Accepting the term “disinformation” is like tacit admission, when so much disinformation turned out to just be “the truth.”
We began to lose fifty years ago, when we adopted the language of every "ism" as each took it's place in the media spotlight. Movements like feminism, environmentalism, racism, (and myriad others), rewrote, and are rewriting language(s), and revising definitions to force discussion of any particular cause to assume the legitimacy of that cause. Prior to any discussion. Which renders the discussion moot. Virtually everything we say, or do, today to try to address issues like child mutilation or election integrity are sadly, but rightfully, equated to the deckchair on the Titanic metaphor.
Free speech
Not ...Free information
This is the Government as Counter-Reformation Church, without the bother of Devil’s advocate or debate, refutation.
Nothing you know was ever suppressed or banned, declared heterodox or heresy including Galileo (suppressed only after peer review) - only with comprehensive refutation was the error declared and banned.
Contrary to this the error and heresy and arguments and counter arguments and final conclusions were without fail documented then taught to Catholic University students at least through the 1950s - so they would be prepared in arguments to defend the faith, which is how we know about the Gnostics, Arians and the rest 1700 years later.
As opposed to “just shut up” ...
For the Prog-Gnostics know better.
Summa Contra...never mind.
They probably think Summa Contra is a Soy brand.
Senator Johnson thought to mention one such occasion.
https://rumble.com/v1ke4xd-joe-biden-lied-to-the-american-public-about-the-covid-vaccine.html
We all know. Hawley hit the big point, which is the admission by the techturd that it is their policy and practice to work with government to censor speech which neither incites people to immediate violence not panic (which would not be protected speech). The government has no authority whatsoever to regulate "misinformation." On the contrary, it is specifically forbidden to impose what it deems misinformation standards of the day upon or against citizens. And political speech, which covid BS totally was, is the most protected. Hence, even the governmental agencies lies about the vaccines efficacy and safety could be repeated by citizens freely, but so should the truth have been allowed to be spoken, but it was not due to collusion between the Democrat coup de taters and big tech public squares.
the whole mis/dis/mal debate is pointless. it doesn’t matter! unless it’s not protected speech, leave users alone. who exactly anointed these idiots arbiters of truth? they cant even define what a woman is without help from a biologist (yes, the same ‘experts’ who need to see the effects of pregnancy hormones on male mice hearts). disinformation does not exist. we have a collection of empirical observations about the world around us. we interpret that data. we get more data and incorporate that into our interpretation. people have varying degrees of ability synthesizing and applying said data. some are better than others. how does the left get away with honoring everyone’s lived experience and truth (at the expense of objectivity) but then turn around and decide the official interpretation of current facts. straight up dumb.
i shouldn’t have to submit empirical proofs to rant incoherently on facebook.
"empirical proofs" are *exactly* what they want to ban! Reality is what ever "they" declare it to be. The omnipresent, omniscient state is the final arbiter of all things.
i would argue that they don’t give a shit about proofs. they aren’t criticizing the methods people use to come to opinions/conclusions. they simply want the ability to ban speech they define (in the moment) as mis/dis/mal. that’s why americans should be able to say whatever they want EVEN if it is unfounded.
A few more steps down the road to firing squads but instead they are using vaccines.
like Grand Ego Fauci declaring "I am the Science"
agreed! and i think citizens, regardless of their Science TM credentials should get to question/agree with/ ridicule Saint Fauci!
ARTICLE V!!
"disinformation does not exist. we have a collection of empirical observations about the world around us. we interpret that data. we get more data and incorporate that into our interpretation".
Beautifully put.
Facebook acts like the government talking points just came fresh from the Mint of Truth.
Facebook takes the government say at face value meanwhile in every criminal court case the government must PROVE what is saying is true with EVIDENCE.
Truth is battled for with evidence and different takes of all parties and then put before the a group of 12 jurors to further hash out what may or may not be true, who may be lying, what most plausibly occurred etc...
And sometimes even after that much sifting through things the jury can still get it wrong!
But to facebook
Government information is real information.
Government people can not lie or make mistakes.
(Even though one branch of the government the Supreme Court exists to reverse the mistakes and bad laws laid out by the Legislature and Executive Branch )
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights which is the basis by which the entire government exists can be trampled on if the government people tell us too.
it blows my mind how the left can call the constitution trash, and then demand their rights be honored- the very rights guaranteed ONLY by that very document.
too many corporations (and many citizens that are employed by them) seem to think that the government should have all the answers. including remediating what is perceived as (incorrectly interested data!!!) systemic injustice.
ARTICLE V!!! we need to amend the constitution, because the executive and legislative branches need a little pruning! i want my elected officials to be accountable to US and OUR VOTES! we did not elect any of these 3letter bureaucracies, and our representatives are failing in the obligation to govern, budget and oversee these monstrous institutions!!
IM MAD AS HELL AND IM NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE
"Was every piece of “disinformation” removed from Facebook actually disinformation, or did some of it turn out to be information? Is it correct to say that every claim removed from social media as disinformation was provably incorrect?"
My 2 cents: this is irrelevant to the other First Amendment considerations. People are supposed to be allowed to say stuff free of government interference. Period. Whether it's hate speech, misinformation, disinformation or malinformation -- for the First Amendment that doesn't matter.
It matters to the powers that be, Gov/Corp partnership
https://brownstone.org/articles/uncovering-the-army-of-federal-censors/
and who do they work for?!?!
ARTICLE V!!! hold your elected officials accountable! make them govern and *actually* oversee the bureaucracies they are supposed to regulate!
By labeling some Americans extremists or domestic terrorists, the government has legal reasoning to censor, harass, arrest, threaten, jail, any and all political opposition, all with the easy assistance of big tech, media, and the courts. If they can mistreat the former president, message loud and clear to everyone, they ca do it to anyone We are now living in tyranny.
Agreed, aside from the 'legal' part. Unless I missed the part of the first amendment where it says 'except extremists, fuck those guys.'
Patriot Act 2.0
....government has "legal reasoning" to censor, harass.... Having "labeled" one or another person. Not so much, please.
Well it's a foregone conclusion all of us on these Stacks' are on the naughty list.
Fine by me.
Could very well be an opportunity in disguise imo.
Methinks it only elevates our voices and perhaps brings some of the middle out of coma.
Maybe?....
I’ve been on a naughty list for a long time. Fuck em.
we have two problems: complicity and complacency
Well Jefferson informed us what we are obligated to do then.
Exactly. He was precisely correct.And if we do not do so, then the loss of the Rights given us by G-d will be our fault entirely. They can’t screw us if we don’t bend over. Say “no” loudly and often.And when they hand you the bill, tear it up. And flush it away.
Pardon, That’s not quite what Jefferson said, it’s not what the Founders did.
Just say No - It isn’t working.
It’s a no that reliably will be a yes.
I was referring to this section of Jefferson’s letter to William Stephens Smith
“The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.”
Uh yea
Since it's impossible to decide what's actually true and what's not, what's disinformation or misinformation or unacknowledged truth, then you have to just allow *everything* and let the chips fall where they may.
But wait, that might put too much responsibility on the plebeian class.
In terms of consequences we’ve already got the responsibility, we may want to take the power of decision.
Who is this Hawley? I like his demeanor and his line of questioning. EXCEPT, he didn't ask how disinformation is defined. Real disinformation is, "Safe and effective," which has been proven wrong time and again. Dr. Kory saying IVM works if taken in the correct timeframe and dosage, is not.
Facebook's removal of threads and accounts with bona fide statements about successful treatment plans and experiences with the vaccine, in my view, makes it complicit in causing injury and death to many. It was intentional. The fact that the information fed by the CDC and government was actually disinformation is no excuse for Facebook's cupability as Cox himself admitted that this was an unprecedented situation. This would be all the more reason to have free flow of information to discover the truth.
This is very well said. It's an incredibly dark development that we don't all widely share the view that the path to truth is through inquiry and debate.
Your point relating to free exchange of ideas?
Someone owes Pope Urban VIII and the Inquisition an apology. I grew up being taught that the Catholic Church had committed a great crime against science by forcing Galileo to recant. It appears they were only way ahead of their time.
So the problem really is how they feel like they are RIGHT in doing this. Sam Harris thought it was MORALLY right to do something legally wrong. This dude felt it was MORALLY right to do something blatantly wrong. It doesn’t matter that what we stifled was truth. And that is what literally keeps me up at night. The truth is irrelevant. IRRELEVANT.
Facebook is already dead but doesn't realize it. Same with Twitter.
Pretty soon Tom will be greeting new accounts.
Its not Speech
Its information
See ?
The frustrating absence in the exchange between Hawley and Cox is about the presumption in the category of “disinformation.”
I actually think this is good strategy on Hawley's part. Too often the right goes down the rabbit hole of arguing something like "you were wrong about this being disinformation," and ends up ceding the bigger issue, which is they have no business deciding what is true and what is disinformation, period. In so doing, we win a small battle and lose the bigger war.
Even if someone posts something false or exaggerated, it is protected First Amendment speech. That is the point. It may feel good to point out how wrong their judgments are, but the fact that they are making the judgments at all is the problem.
Censorship goes hand in hand with totalitarianism, corruption, manipulation of public opinion, and usually is a sign of a frightened regime. Are there exceptions to these characteristics? Well yes, for example you shouldn’t be able to destroy somebody’s reputation with lies, but there are laws against that sort of thing. Of course, you need an ethical judiciary to uphold the law.
I was banned from:
Twitter, crime: saying allowing ANTIFA/BLM to riot, loot, commit arson, and kill people was a bad idea for America and could lead to wider violent conflict.
LinkedIn (lol), for saying that the preponderance of scientific evidence suggested the COVID 19 virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute, not from a Burger King with armadillos in the rest rooms. Of course, just before my banishment from the world’s most annoying corporatespeak networking site, a virologist with multiple DoD contracts got into my timeline to argue with me. (That was disturbing.) He didn’t refute my evidence, but just afterward magically I was banished.
WSJ- didn’t actually ban me, just eventually would not let anything I posted appear. Meanwhile paid Leftist trolls, who admitted as much, posted their strident woke dumb crap with impunity.
There are others as well. All of them tell you that you are violating a policy, but you never really know what you did wrong, which means the banishment is arbitrary,partisan, and not motivated by anything most decent people would wish to be associated with.
How much of it is internal censorship versus the administrative state coercion of private enterprises is unknown at this time, but government seems pretty comfy censoring Americans with the “wrong” POV these days.
Actually I’m happier off of most social media. It’s a time suck, rarely is enlightening except for breaking news, which is otherwise available, and tends to bring out the worst in people on all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum.
But we need to defend the Bill of Rights. The Founders were not perfect, nor were they omniscient. But they did better than any other group up to their time in translating a revolution into something positive and enduring, by creating foundational documents around the rights and natural inclinations of a free people. The people we have running the works now are pathetic.
You can forget about Florida , The Liberals avenge themselves on DeSantis by shipping him Karens.
https://babylonbee.com/news/marthas-vineyard-takes-revenge-on-desantis-by-shipping-him-50-karens
There's this gigantic, ~800-page file on the main lawsuit against Biden over this: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-Statement-on-Discovery-Disputes-Combined.pdf
One of the remarkable things from the file is that Facebook apparently started this effort on its own, in February 2020.
Even fictional cartoons can be taken down: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/02/vimeo-removes-artists-fictional-vaccine-cartoon-labeling-it-dangerous-health-related-content/