You must log in or register to comment.

SpreadDaBread t1_ivb5ce0 wrote

Social media is a liability now. Even if something is forwarded and reposted through social media it fundamentally makes it not credible at this point. Social media is just no longer valid. People still participating in these websites have empty words by default unfortunately. You can almost group them all together in group thought at this point it’s so overdone.


Regayov t1_ivaz5p5 wrote

It is one thing for the government to push the social media companies to better detect and remove the tactical influence campaigns by organizations (and other governments).

It is quite another for the government to define “misinformation” and coerce the social media companies to remove it. That is a dangerous and slippery slope.

Edit: when I say ‘define misinformation’ above I don’t mean them defining the term “misinformation” (though even that would be a challenge). I mean the government defining specific information as misinformation and demanding action based on that.


[deleted] t1_ivb15ng wrote

Haven't governments always determined misinformation? Slander, libel, defamation, false advertising, fraud, etc., Those have always been crimes in the US.


red_vette t1_ivb29vv wrote

All of those have to be proven through the legal process. Out right government censorship without due process is another thing all together.


[deleted] t1_ivbon1k wrote

So we just need to start more court cases over misinformation. The Alex Jones trials were a good start but we can pick up speed.


Regayov t1_ivb31bw wrote

The government defined Slander, Libel, Defamation and false advertising but the application of those terms to specific information requires a trial where both sides are represented. That is way different from the government saying “this information is false, remove it”.


fitzroy95 t1_ivb9d6t wrote

Most Govts have also pushed the propaganda and misinformation that most suits their agenda via corporate media, social media, political media etc.

There is always misinformation that they want to spread, and misinformation they want to block.


685327592 t1_ivb7pqu wrote

Those aren't controlled by the government, a jury has to find you guilty.


FarmerHandsome t1_ivbjv3m wrote

There's a gulf between misinformation and disinformation. Don't conflate the two.


Regayov t1_ivblnjl wrote

Interesting point. Please explain. Seems the two are very similar and the difference is subjective.


FarmerHandsome t1_ivbn8m3 wrote

Misinformation is wrong. It may be a joke or a prank or even just someone being ignorant and misunderstanding a topic then spreading their misunderstanding. It can still be harmful to the democratic process, but it could also be a quote misattributed to Mark Twain.

Disinformation is intentionally wrong and is created and disseminated with the intent to deceive and/or harm. This is what the AG is warning about. It is always malicious and is detrimental to democracy. One example would be the idea that the 2020 election was rigged (it wasn't, and any information to the contrary is a lie: ie. It is disinformation).

Edit: once someone unknowingly spreads disinformation, it becomes misinformation. Should have included nuance in the first place.


Regayov t1_ivbszd0 wrote

Ok. Good explanation. I’d maybe argue that in this context it is the AG (or everyone, really) using the term “misinformation” instead of “disinformation”. It’s also not easy to tell the difference between the two with a well engineered disinformation campaign by a well funded organization or government. Which brings it back to my original point: the government saying “look out for signs of organizational disinformation campaigns, here is how” is different from specifically calling for information to be purged.


FarmerHandsome t1_ivc43ie wrote

I mean, the article title literally says "disinformation." The AG said "disinformation." So you aren't actually in disagreement with the AG.

Regarding informing the public, a lot of these disinformation campaigns have already poisoned the well so much that even trying to get people to pay more attention to sources is an uphill battle because they now only believe the disinformation sources. If you try to offer a counterclaim, even with evidence, they will deny the veracity of even the most well documented information. That's why the AG is asking for help. We know that social media companies actually push dis- and misinformation because it drives engagement. So it isn't even that we need to quash the information, we simply need social media companies to stop actively participating in its spread. Their inaction would actually be more beneficial than what they are currently doing.

Edit: made a whoops, now have removed it. (I said "only says" which was not accurate, and I don't know how to add strikethrough on mobile.)


Regayov t1_ivcct0a wrote

> The AG said “disinformation.” So you aren’t actually in disagreement with the AG.

The AG, or at least its web post, used both dis- and mis-.


FarmerHandsome t1_ivce78h wrote

Right, so the people who start the spread are providing disinformation. Those who aren't clever enough to figure out that they're being lied to then spread that same information and it becomes misinformation (because the intent is not to cause harm). My original definition lacked nuance. I hope this clears up why the AG uses both terms in the quotes.


[deleted] t1_ivceun4 wrote

No, it would only be a lie if the person knowingly stated it. A person could believe it (misinformed) and be wrong but not a liar. This is a mistake often used by CNN.


FarmerHandsome t1_ivcf0na wrote

Very fair. I added this bit of nuance in a later comment in this thread.


hayden_evans t1_ivb8vgj wrote

A bit late isn’t it?


snap-erection t1_ive74jn wrote

Yeah isn't the election on the 8th? Like in a day? What are they supposed to do until then?


geezerslide t1_ivbmryt wrote

About time everyone grow a pair. If by now, you don't know that getting your news from social media is a vast wasteland of B.S., you have been living under a rock. Its called free speach & anyone can say what the hell they want from the earth is flat to a politician watches women pee while drinking Vodka with a Russian. You and only you vs some bureacrat or billionaire should decide if the crap you hear or read is valid or should be in the National Inquirer at the Dollar Store check out stand.

If it sounds absurd, it probably is and you should do your own research vs believing the constantly repeated and copied headline from some corporate media outlet, regardless which side. If you arn't looking at who might have an agenda, thier reputation for spewing bs in the past and who the hell the sources are vs "anomalous" or "people familiar with matter", you aren't using common sense.

It amazes me how gulible people are and how much they want to be offended because someone didn't filter what they are spoon fed. I dont care if you believe Fox, CNN, Spacebook, Twitless or whatever but for God's sake, start using your own judgement, question and research before you get all pantie wrapped calling for someone else to determine what is information, disinformation, parody, humor or total bullshit. Right wing, left wing, pick a label, just think for yourself and question everything.

No one needs to be shutdown, hounded and canceled because they think pizza should be square vs the round you may think. If you think square pizza being better is propaganda, buy your round pizza and be happy vs demanding the government or Chef Boy R Dee should decide and mandate you should only hear good stories about round pizza.


anthraxius69 t1_ivbu5nc wrote

It’s obvious that when people claim freedoms threaten democracy, they are the real threat to democracy.


Flame87 t1_ivb454y wrote

"It's oppression to remove my lying"

Another day, another comment section full of conservatives complaining about their free speech to

  1. Promote lies

  2. Promote Violence

  3. Commit fraud

  4. Share CP


Quartz_Splinter t1_ivbkegp wrote

Disimformation is literally the price you pay for free speech. You cant have one without the other. I would take the disimformation for the right to have free speech over not having free speech at all. Y'all act like disimformation will just vanish if people dont have free speech anymore. Pull your head out of your fucking ass and look at the long term reality of your decisions.


Flame87 t1_ivbldm7 wrote

Another day another "The real fascists are the fascists who won't let us fascist"


BuzzBadpants t1_ivbmfql wrote

I’m tired of people claiming that disinformation is so intractable from “free speech,” and that somehow means that it is inherently valuable.

Disinformation has net negative value. We’ve placed limits on “free speech” such that hate speech and speech that gets people killed is actually illegal in the US. I have yet to see anyone make any claim as to why disinformation should be protected speech.

And before everyone comes in with the predictable “who decides what’s disinformation” nonsense, the answer is a judge. Literally what their job is and has been for over 200 years.


svs940a t1_ivbsqh9 wrote

Hate speech isn’t an exception to the first amendment


BuzzBadpants t1_ivc3m8h wrote

It’s a legal exception to completely unfettered speech, which conservatives seem to believe is what the first amendment means.


SlickJamesBitch t1_ivbtyec wrote

If there was a perfect authority that could remove untrue information I would pro censorship, I just defend free-speech because I don’t trust a source to determine what is right and wrong info with out society rife with political corruption. Just look at how the leftist freaking out about the possibility of Elon censoring their speech.

There’s clear negatives to free speech like people believing ridiculous conspiracies, but I’d much rather have that than to be in a society with top down authoritarianism.


sockpastarock t1_ive4oec wrote

There's a flaw in this classic "arbiter of truth" argument. We shouldn't ask "who" can we trust as the arbiter of truth - the answer is we cannot trust anyone with that responsibility. Instead we should ask "what" can we trust?

It's an epistemic question and we have already developed good ways of dealing with it as a species. Look at the scientific method which fundamentally relies on the principle of falsifiability to seek truth. Free speech would ideally rely on the same principle if we consider it useful for the purpose of leading us toward truth. If the speech in question is unfalsifiable or is falsified then it shouldn't be considered as protected speech. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's automatically censored, but that if this speech is challenged for censorship then free speech alone would not be an adequate defence against censorship. There may be other defences for it - for example, we still publish scientific papers which falsify their own hypothesis but we wouldn't keep publishing the same falsified hypothesis repeatedly unless there is new information to bring it back into question in a way which is falsifiable. It's pretty simple and it has already been proven to operate exceedingly well as a method of truth arbitration as demonstrated by its utility with the rapid acceleration of modern science.


DBDude t1_ivc8pqe wrote

The left isn’t scared of Musk censoring their speech. They’re scared he’ll stop censoring speech they don’t like so their ideas will have to survive on a level playing field.


Flame87 t1_ivbua91 wrote

Defending "You kicked off our criminally delicensed doctor so we're banning every legitimate media outlet as decided exclusively by our party" isn't the "we aren't fascists" flex you think it is.


Stellen999 t1_ivb5rm9 wrote

Yeah, because the government hasn't suppressed information that was later proven to be true. Idiots like you actually believe that things you agree with will never be targeted because you're the good guys, but it's only a matter of time.


Aside from all of that, the biden administration has been so deceitful lately that CNN actually wrote a piece calling them out on all of the blatant lies.


Flame87 t1_ivb6618 wrote

CNN is right wing now too and nobody watches it in the first place except Republicans looking for more buzz words to screech about.

Meanwhile here you are arguing lying, violence, fraud, and CP are protected political speech.


Stellen999 t1_ivb8ut3 wrote

No one is arguing that Child porn is free speech, you're just doing a very poor strawman. By the way, you might want to ask yourself why you type about child porn so much you have to use a 2 character abbreviation.


Flame87 t1_ivb9fff wrote

I know why, because Republicans get caught fucking kids or watching CP literally twice a fucking month.

Maybe ask yourself why you you support a party that has a deep seated obsession with it.


Electrical-Bacon-81 t1_ivb07fd wrote

"People are free to say things about us that make our actions look bad, we need you to make sure that doesnt happen"


Unlimitles t1_ivbqtf8 wrote

What social media company controls the News on Network television because they need to be stopped too.


[deleted] t1_ivb18hj wrote

good luck, plenty of stupid people believe lies anyway.


Bernie_Ecclestone t1_ivb7o4e wrote

Why isn’t Reddit moderating misinformation on r/Conservative and r/conspiracy?

A current headline there is Anthony Fauci Gave Scientists Over $400,000 to Make “Humanized Mice” With Scalps From Aborted Babies for fucks sake.


grewapair t1_ivbemco wrote

For those who didn't read the article: this is the California Attorney general.


mtcwby t1_ivayftx wrote

And who exactly decides what's disinformation? There's plenty of examples of censorship by social media that wasn't disinformation but is just not agreed with by the censor.

And it's coming from all angles too. How about we work harder at teaching people to be discerning about sources. Bonta is nothing but a partisan hack himself and doesn't mind disinformation when it's favoring his side.


Cold_Turkey_Cutlet t1_ivb7s6w wrote

Reality decides what is disinformation.

There is a shitload of disinformation being pushed about this election. All of America's enemies want the Republicans to win, and they are pushing to make that happen. They will probably succeed too. This looks like America's fatal weakness. An unwillingness to fix this vulnerability is likely to cost Americans their country and democracy.


mtcwby t1_ivb9au1 wrote

Are you going to censor Rob Bonta since that fucker flat lies, and misinforms when it comes to firearms topics? And it's not opinion, it's flat out misinformation. It's hard to tell whether he's just a liar or stupid sometimes because it's so blatant. He's an absolute political animal with all the bullshit that comes with it.


morningreis t1_ivb65xa wrote

The bots in here are in overdrive


685327592 t1_ivb77yi wrote

I've been getting wall to wall political ads for the last month and they have more disinformation in these OFFICIAL political ads than I've ever seen on Facebook. If these politicians want to reduce disinformation they should start by pulling all their own ads.


whatweshouldcallyou t1_ivbpxro wrote

"Disinformation" really means "facts and opinions inconvenient to the surveillance state and the military industrial complex"


w1ngzer0 t1_ivc6v6c wrote

Not necessarily. Facts are facts, and can stand up against challenge and against dispute. Opinions however are like assholes, everyone has one and everyone’s opinion smells in some way, shape, or form. Moreover, opinions are not fact, but we’ve allowed opinion to be presented and accepted as fact.

And there’s money in allowing opinions to be presented as fact, regardless of the opinion. So I doubt anything will be done. It’s too lucrative for everyone involved on the opinion spewing end.



Musicferret t1_ivba4xw wrote

Well, that fixed the issue then. Looks like calling on people to stop doing things that damage the fabric of our society is as strong as these guys get.


GJenkins675 t1_ivcm5he wrote

Best thing to fight misinformation is to get your 17th booster shot.


Steamer61 t1_ivdh3y9 wrote

What scares me is that there are so many people who agree with this idiot.

I get it, Rob Bonta is much more intelligent than most people, he knows what is true and what isn't. If only everyone else could be forced to see things his way, the world would be better, right?

What is the truth? We know the "fact checkers" are virtually worthless. Who determines the truth?


[deleted] t1_ivb7nia wrote

Does this include Fox and CNN?


BF1shY t1_ivc1vkk wrote

America always tries to deal with the leak instead of turning off the faucet.

Lets focus on education, critical thinking, and logic. So when the educated public sees misinformation they are less likely to believe it and move on.


Teamerchant t1_ivc5zu0 wrote

Reminds me of a business meeting ran by overconfident, overpaid executives where the only semi actionable item they leave you with is “ we need to increase revenue” with no mention of how to do that.

Misinformation is the biggest problem we face. We need leaders to show us how to fight it, not say, hey you fix this.


canusbus t1_ivc8zft wrote

And most importantly, as a byproduct so nobody notices, stop anyone like Julian Assange speaking out of systemic injustice and corruption!


KickBassColonyDrop t1_ivd7a0c wrote

Social media and mainstream media are both liabilities without the Fairness Doctrine. Claiming one is bad and the other isn't is low intelligence.

You have to look no further than the media rushing to publish "news" about Twitter's layoffs after Musk's acquisition, wherein sources we are widely expected to consider credible ran a story about Rahul Ligma and Daniel Johnson being "fired" from Twitter without any effort to fact check and confirm the veracity of the events transpired. MSNBC, ABC, CNN, etc. All publishing "breaking news" about Ligma Johnson.

Effectively proving that mainstream media engages in minsinformation all the same. The fact that several organizations then, after the fact, proceeded to publicly apologize for the lack of quality checking is damning.


kuug t1_ivexjio wrote

AG Bonta could start by stop spreading disinformation among his post-Bruen briefs defending gun control.


reddideridoo t1_ivbwgug wrote

As long as there is profit to be made, no company will bat an eye.


Numchuckx t1_ivcy5lr wrote

Sure. Lets stop it when we are 2 days away ….


imnotapartofthis t1_ivdfg2h wrote

Everyone’s looking at you Elon. Do something.


gregglewa t1_ivdlsoi wrote

Thank goodness! That will do it! Phew, dodged a bullet there.


ThisisthewayLA t1_ivdt3t7 wrote

Bwahaha like anyone is going to listen


SmokedSteaks t1_ivck3b4 wrote

Lol 😂 trusting anything from Bonta is a joke


[deleted] t1_ivas92m wrote



HotpieTargaryen t1_ivay7xl wrote

On lying about facts. Not free speech, just misinformation and propaganda. You can relax your “concern.”


D20NE t1_ivatntf wrote

I kinda liked when FB did those fact checking notifications on popular posts. Saved a lot of time.


Relative-Excuse626 t1_ivawyk6 wrote

The government doesn’t like new Twitter doing it because the new fact checkers aren’t bought and paid for by the people they’re supposed to keep accountable


AintAintAWord t1_ivazmgq wrote

"Watch as I pull this shit out of my ass and present it as truth!"


Relative-Excuse626 t1_ivb1u48 wrote

Okay, Nazi. Keep slurping that billionaire oligarch skeet


Not-another-rando t1_ivb3ern wrote

Wait so you’re defending musks lack of fact checking and then calling someone else a billionaire skeet slurper?


AintAintAWord t1_ivb5355 wrote

Calling out blatant lies somehow makes me a nazi in this fucking loser's eyes lmfao


Relative-Excuse626 t1_ivb3z1g wrote

If I could attack Elon, I would. My sister works at one of his companies and is treated very well. My man is actually spending his money on investing in the future in spaces people said we’re impossible. Elon isn’t a billionaire in the sense of other ones that treat us like slaves and hoard all the wealth like the Sacklers (killing Americans with opioids), Pritzkers (turning gender affirmation therapy into an overpriced insurance scheme), Waltons (child labor in China through Walmart), and that’s before we even touch banks, oil barons, and all other polluters and legitimately evil individuals and groups.


SneakyLocke t1_ivav0me wrote

I would respect this if it included the attacks that were motivated by the left. Without that this is just partisan


jthompson473 t1_ivbjhs9 wrote

Which attacks were motivated by the left and please provide proof.


SneakyLocke t1_ivbkvvn wrote

There was an argument about politics between a democrat and a republican, the democrat ran him over and killed him. This was not that long ago . Do a quick Google search (not snarky, just can’t search right now)


Wiseduck5 t1_ivcffd5 wrote

You should probably go google that instead of making snarky comments.

[Because that's an outright lie.] (

Thanks for providing such a clear cut example of misinformation.


SneakyLocke t1_ivcknke wrote

As if narratives can't change. Sorry, but this was reported


If the narrative changed, that is fine.

Ok, what about Kavanaugh? Any change there?


Wiseduck5 t1_ivcl83f wrote

>If the narrative changed, that is fine.

Given that conservatives are still lying about it, no it is not fine.

>Ok, what about Kavanaugh? Any change there?

[The suicidal guy who called the cops on himself?] (

If conservative didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.


SneakyLocke t1_ivcqogg wrote

You're right, political violence is unique to the right, i'm voting blue


Wiseduck5 t1_ivcr15w wrote

Are not even a little bit concerned that everything conservative media has been telling you is a lie? Did you also believe the nonsense about litter boxes?

Republicans quite literally have no platform. This is all they have.

And apparently that is enough. We're doomed as a species.


SneakyLocke t1_ivcswip wrote

You linked me the article dispelling the misinformation from fox news dude


Wiseduck5 t1_ivdtbtt wrote

Yes, because I expected you call any other news source "fake news."

Yet you still believed the ridiculous lie.


jthompson473 t1_ivbmcm8 wrote

So how was that motivated by the Democratic party?

Sounds like an asshole being an asshole.


SneakyLocke t1_ivbmzry wrote

How was about the man showing up to a Supreme Court justice’s house to murder him , politically motivated?


SneakyLocke t1_ivbmrq6 wrote

Got it, nothing to see here.


jthompson473 t1_ivbn3so wrote

So you have nothing to back your claim that the Democratic party put out a call to run Republicans over?

And out of curiosity, given your logic so far, what are you thoughts about Jan 6th 2020?


Relative-Excuse626 t1_ivawv29 wrote

This. What misinformation? Russian collusion? Cines stopping transmission? Russian PP tapes!?