Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[RaymondR]

Well let's just take the piece of creative editing shown on the 7.30 Report re the Prime Minister's press conference on the aged care inquiry report.

The footage shows an ABC reporter asking the PM a question which he avoids answering and then walks away terminating the conference. The actual footage shows the PM answering the ABC reporters question and then taking further questions on the report before then answering questions on other subjects.

So contrary to the impression of an uncaring PM on the subject of aged care which was created by the ABC's creative editing the PM answered all the questions put to him on that subject and only terminated the press conference after answering further questions on other subjects some time later.

This sort of selective editing and consequent misrepresentation is common practice on the part of "our ABC".

[larsfforsberg]

I thought it was stolen 4 years ago by Russia? Any time big media tells you to "look over here" - always look somewhere else, that's where the real story is.

[GordMay]

Canadian Law Prohibiting Election Misinformation Struck Down
An Ontario judge has struck down a provision of the Canada Elections Act, that prohibits making false statements, during election campaigns.

The court challenge, launched in 2019, centres on a section added to the election law in 2018 as part of Bill C-76. Section 91 (1) of the legislation makes it against the law to make a false statement during an election about whether a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party is under investigation or has committed an offence.
It also prohibits false statements about their citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association.

The CCF challenged the section, arguing that it was an unjustified restriction on free speech and was overly broad. The federal government agreed that it was a limitation on the charter right to free speech but argued that it was justifiable.

In a 15-page decision [1], Ontario Superior Court Justice Breese Davies ruled that the section is an unjustifiable restriction on Canadians' right to free speech.
Much of the judgment focused on the government's decision in 2018 to remove the requirement from the law that says someone must "knowingly" made false statements, and whether that was implied in the law.
Davies said that decision played a role in her ruling. Without requiring that someone know a statement is false when they make it, the prohibition in the law does not qualify as a minimal impairment of a charter right, she ruled.

The federal government has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling.

File number: CV-19-00627380
[1] Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 1224 (CanLII)
➥ https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=1

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Canadian Law Prohibiting Election Misinformation Struck Down
An Ontario judge has struck down a provision of the Canada Elections Act, that prohibits making false statements, during election campaigns.

Much of the judgment focused on the government's decision in 2018 to remove the requirement from the law that says someone must "knowingly" made false statements, and whether that was implied in the law.

Davies said that decision played a role in her ruling. Without requiring that someone know a statement is false when they make it, the prohibition in the law does not qualify as a minimal impairment of a charter right, she ruled.

This does seem to be the key point on which the judgment turned. It significantly lowered the bar for potential prosecution under this law, and therefore was not justified.

But the judge also made it clear:

"... the distribution of false information during elections can threaten our democracy. It can undermine public confidence in our democratic institutions and the security of our elections. The dissemination of deliberately false statements obstructs the search for the truth and, as a result, it does not (my emphasis added) enjoy the same level of protection under s. 2(b) of the Charter as political speech..."

So this ruling returns the law to the prior state where one can lie about "the personal character or conduct of a candidate before or during an election," as long as one doesn't know it's a lie.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This does seem to be the key point on which the judgment turned. It significantly lowered the bar for potential prosecution under this law, and therefore was not justified.

The level of genuine misingformation (let alone a personal smear or two) in the last Canadian federal election was troubling.

Example.
Example.
Example.
Doubling down on a lie.
Example.

... I don't recall this receiving near the post-election attention it should have.

[Mike OReilly]

I'm not sure if the struck law would cover some of those examples LE since it specifies lying about "the personal character or conduct of a candidate" not lying about the policies of the party. Certainly the Trudeau sex scandal lie would fit under the law, but the others seem more like policy lies.

And of course the Liberals lie about what the Conservatives really intend to do once in power as well. Somehow the Conservatives are always going to gut medicare and other social spending, even though these are mostly within the purview of the provinces. And of course they're going to cut taxes for the rich and stick it to the poor -- well, this last one might actually be true .

[SailOar]

Foreign Threats To The 2020 U.S. Federal Elections
Declassified by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines
Date: March 16, 2021

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/docum...ss-16MAR21.pdf

[KEY JUDGEMENTS 2 and 3 pertain to this discussion.]

[GordMay]

[jimbunyard]

Or, for another perspective (skip to 11:41)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGriLgD9vA

[GordMay]

Does Science Have Anything to Say about Cancel Culture?
As it turns out, yes.
A team of psychologists reported [1] on a new effect called “concept-creep”, whereby, when we remove negative events from our environment, we begin to subconsciously identify neutral and positive events as negative.
The fact that human definitions of problems begin to grow [thereby increasing the number of identified problems], despite the problems actually becoming less prevalent, provides some basic scientific evidence for the growing trend of pessimism.
The researchers state [1], that concept-creep, in humans, may suggest that even the most well-meaning of people might subconsciously be identifying issues as problems, that were previously defined, [socially or personal], as non-problems.

[1] “Prevalence-induced Concept Change in Human Judgement” ~ by David E. Levari et al
➥https://drive.google.com/file/d/12nK...wabObuW1F/view

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Does Science Have Anything to Say about Cancel Culture?
As it turns out, yes.
A team of psychologists reported [1] on a new effect called “concept-creep”, whereby, when we remove negative events from our environment, we begin to subconsciously identify neutral and positive events as negative.
The fact that human definitions of problems begin to grow [thereby increasing the number of identified problems], despite the problems actually becoming less prevalent, provides some basic scientific evidence for the growing trend of pessimism.
The researchers state [1], that concept-creep, in humans, may suggest that even the most well-meaning of people might subconsciously be identifying issues as problems, that were previously defined, [socially or personal], as non-problems.

[1] “Prevalence-induced Concept Change in Human Judgement” ~ by David E. Levari et al
➥https://drive.google.com/file/d/12nK...wabObuW1F/view

Not only does science have 'something to say' about the fact that it does happen, it also has something to say about how and why it happens.

Coincidentally, I've just started reading a book (about 3 chapters in) called 'Behave', by primatologist/neurobiologist Robert Sapolsy, that suggests some of the biological pathways that seem to lead to such behaviour, and that they are learned as well as inherent in the brain structures of certain higher mammals (specifically primates, cetaceans and elephants), which implies that such things can be unlearned, or at least controlled.

Perhaps unfortunately, unregulated techno/socioeconomic/cultural factors appear to be conspiring against such modifications to the status quo...

It is unclear if the misnamed 'information revolution' will result in a spate of 'positive' rapid punctuated evolution, or if the results will be more 'negatively aligned'...

Seems 'science' and the deification of both technological and monetary primacy have some 'splainin to do...

[jimbunyard]

That's 'Sapolsky', not 'Sapolsy'. Oops.

[GordMay]

“Inside a COVID-19 conspiracy boot camp” ~ by Katie Pedersen, Eric Szeto, Asha Tomlinson

"While Canadian health authorities fight back against what Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam has called "an infodemic" — the spread of false information about the COVID-19 pandemic — others are working just as hard to target the public with conspiracy theories.
CBC 'Marketplace' journalists took part in a U.S. COVID-19 conspiracy "boot camp," where aspiring activists — including the leader of one of Canada's prominent misinformation campaigns — learn tactics of persuasion to sow seeds of doubt about information coming from public health authorities ..."

More ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/marketplace/...camp-1.5963503

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“Inside a COVID-19 conspiracy boot camp” ~ by Katie Pedersen, Eric Szeto, Asha Tomlinson

"While Canadian health authorities fight back against what Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam has called "an infodemic" — the spread of false information about the COVID-19 pandemic — others are working just as hard to target the public with conspiracy theories.
CBC 'Marketplace' journalists took part in a U.S. COVID-19 conspiracy "boot camp," where aspiring activists — including the leader of one of Canada's prominent misinformation campaigns — learn tactics of persuasion to sow seeds of doubt about information coming from public health authorities ..."

More ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/marketplace/...camp-1.5963503

Sounds like a few over at the "risk vs benefit alarming news" thread might have taken this course .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sounds like a few over at the "risk vs benefit alarming news" thread might have taken this course .

Some folks just come by it naturally.