Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Unlike a parliamentary system, a 3rd party that is more closely aligned with one of the two major parties tends to undermine the party they align more closely to as it splits the votes. If you have two parties that lean liberal, they tend to split the liberal vote while the conservative vote all lines up behind a single conservative candidate (or vice versa).

Good points.

I think that a viable 3 party US system (not two parties and one or two mavericks) would finally create a home for the "middle" - pragmatism, balance, moderation (the new GOP, maybe?), and the other two parties would have to temper their radical elements to draw votes away from there. You also get shifting cooperation if the support of two parties is necessary to pass anything, which gives policy a chance over identity.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I agree that the majority of both groups were/are peaceful protesters.

But the one thing Jan 6 clearly confirmed is that the "Trumpers"/QAnon/white-rights coalition have a deep streak of hate, violence and lawlessness. Prior to that date, I don't think that anyone would have dared draw any parallels between them and BLM. Now that the mask is off, we can see it more clearly.

It's no secret that the US right wing has the better relationship with members of law enforcement and the military. I suspect that this lulled the Capital security people into thinking that the "stolen election" people would just show up, protest loudly, respect the security, and go home, so they didn't put in the same level of security that they would have for a BLM protest (or the Women's March ).

If there had been adequate security, Jan 6 would just have been just another noisy protest and quickly forgotten.

Maybe the small subset took them by surprise but it's a bit of a reach and part of the liberal agenda against police to associate the two groups. When police tried to defuse BLM, we got cute feel good stories about police dancing with the non-violent BLM participants. Meanwhile the media was digging hard for any relationship to the police and military to support the story line against conservatives.

To imply the hard core BLM doesn't have a deep streak of hate, violence and lawlessness is a huge leap. As far as security for these protests, BLM spent all of last summer violently protesting with little or no security response (I think they still control an big chunk of downtown Seattle). One day of protest that got out of control and there was a huge and overwhelming response to the conservative groups.

I don't have an issue with the swift response against he conservative groups getting out of control. The violent ones deserve prosecution. The issue I have is response and prosecution appears to be highly dependent upon your political affiliation.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Maybe the small subset took them by surprise but it's a bit of a reach and part of the liberal agenda against police to associate the two groups. When police tried to defuse BLM, we got cute feel good stories about police dancing with the non-violent BLM participants. Meanwhile the media was digging hard for any relationship to the police and military to support the story line against conservatives.

To imply the hard core BLM doesn't have a deep streak of hate, violence and lawlessness is a huge leap. As far as security for these protests, BLM spent all of last summer violently protesting with little or no security response (I think they still control an big chunk of downtown Seattle). One day of protest that got out of control and there was a huge and overwhelming response to the conservative groups.

I don't have an issue with the swift response against he conservative groups getting out of control. The violent ones deserve prosecution. The issue I have is response and prosecution appears to be highly dependent upon your political affiliation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Maybe the small subset took them by surprise but it's a bit of a reach and part of the liberal agenda against police to associate the two groups.

Let's be clear, I'm not trying to equate these two groups. Very different groups with different aims. Too much to unpack.

To imply the hard core BLM doesn't have a deep streak of hate, violence and lawlessness is a huge leap.

Good thing I didn't, then Though one can usually differentiate between those peacefully protesting, and those out wrecking stuff.

My main point, which maybe I undersold, is that if there had been sufficient Capital security in place on Jan 6, those protesters would most likely not have stormed the Capital building, and we'd still be pretending they're mainly law-abiding folks with legitimate grievances and some off-beat ideas. And Trump would be out golfing this week, and the senate would be dealing with important stuff.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

What amazes me in the US is how both parties think they are morally superior to the other while they are both an abomination. Then how 99% of the population are all nice and decent people (my experience) but they think “the other half” is not because they compare them to the party they vote for... like they have a choice!

... bingo. The two-party problem.

[GordMay]

A database[1], of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots, in the United States, since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist, that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists, and other rightwing extremists, have carried out attacks, that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database.
The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and outlines the threat from right-wing, left-wing, white supremacist, anti-government extremists, and religious networks.

0 - Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994
21 - Victims killed in left-wing violence since 2010
95 - Victims killed in jihadist attacks since 2010
117 - Victims killed in right-wing violence since 2010
329 - Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994

The CSIS brief concludes:
“... All parts of U.S. society have an important role to play in countering terrorism. Politicians need to encourage greater civility and refrain from incendiary language. Social media companies need to continue sustained efforts to fight hatred and terrorism on their platforms. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other companies are already doing this. But the struggle will only get more difficult as the United States approaches the November 2020 presidential election—and even in its aftermath. Finally, the U.S. population needs to be more alert to disinformation, double-check their sources of information, and curb incendiary language.
Terrorism feeds off lies, conspiracies, disinformation, and hatred. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi urged individuals to practice what he called “satyagraha,” or truth force. “Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it always insists upon truth,” he explained. [53] That advice is just as important as it has ever been in the United States.”

[1] “The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States” ~ by Seth G. Jones, Catrina Doxsee, & Nicholas Harrington
“... This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020 ...
... Between 1994 and 2020, there were 893 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States. Overall, right-wing terrorists perpetrated the majority—57 percent—of all attacks and plots during this period, compared to 25 percent committed by left-wing terrorists, 15 percent by religious terrorists, 3 percent by ethnonationalists, and 0.7 percent by terrorists with other motives ...”
[1] ➥ https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...rrorism_v6.pdf

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Good thing I didn't, then Though one can usually differentiate between those peacefully protesting, and those out wrecking stuff.

Except you kind of did. I purposely chose the word "imply" before originally posting as you didn't specifically state it but you made it very clear.

And if there had been sufficient response to the BLM protests, most of the destruction and injury and death would have been avoided. The point is it's a two way street.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Except you kind of did. I purposely chose the word "imply" before originally posting as you didn't specifically state it but you made it very clear.

And if there had been sufficient response to the BLM protests, most of the destruction and injury and death would have been avoided. The point is it's a two way street.

Everyone can see what I wrote. And taking a cue from Gord, some stats.

ACLED found that the overwhelming majority of the more than 9.000 Black Lives Matter demonstrationsthat took place across the US after the killing of George Floyd have been peaceful. News reports at the height of demonstrations over Floyd’s killing cited dozens of deaths in connection with protests, but many of those turned out to be examples of deadly crimes carried out in the vicinity of protests, rather than directly related to the demonstrations themselves, the researchers concluded.

The perception that the majority of BLM protests were violent and they're "getting away with it", abetted by the media, is, um, misinformation, to try to bring this back to the thread topic.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A database[1], of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots, in the United States, since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist, that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists, and other rightwing extremists, have carried out attacks, that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database.
The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and outlines the threat from right-wing, left-wing, white supremacist, anti-government extremists, and religious networks.

0 - Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994
21 - Victims killed in left-wing violence since 2010
95 - Victims killed in jihadist attacks since 2010
117 - Victims killed in right-wing violence since 2010
329 - Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994

The CSIS brief concludes:
“... All parts of U.S. society have an important role to play in countering terrorism. Politicians need to encourage greater civility and refrain from incendiary language. Social media companies need to continue sustained efforts to fight hatred and terrorism on their platforms. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other companies are already doing this. But the struggle will only get more difficult as the United States approaches the November 2020 presidential election—and even in its aftermath. Finally, the U.S. population needs to be more alert to disinformation, double-check their sources of information, and curb incendiary language.
Terrorism feeds off lies, conspiracies, disinformation, and hatred. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi urged individuals to practice what he called “satyagraha,” or truth force. “Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it always insists upon truth,” he explained. [53] That advice is just as important as it has ever been in the United States.”

[1] “The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States” ~ by Seth G. Jones, Catrina Doxsee, & Nicholas Harrington
“... This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020 ...
... Between 1994 and 2020, there were 893 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States. Overall, right-wing terrorists perpetrated the majority—57 percent—of all attacks and plots during this period, compared to 25 percent committed by left-wing terrorists, 15 percent by religious terrorists, 3 percent by ethnonationalists, and 0.7 percent by terrorists with other motives ...”
[1] ➥ https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...rrorism_v6.pdf

The problem is we need clear definitions of who is who and what actually happened. Many of the people involved are often not officially members of any group the media is often the source for labels. Some of the definitions CSIS (and the media) uses is if you aren't part of the liberal cause, you must be white supremacist. But they explain away cases in the reverse as not politically motivated, so we shouldn't count them.

See the article below as a good example. I would consider BLM to be part of the left wing (and possibly antifa) movement...here's 19 associated deaths that don't show up in the list above.

My guess is a number are omitted because they are antifa members who got themselves killed attacking and looting businesses and the business owner fought back, so those get listed (if they get listed) as right wing attacks further skewing the data.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimam...h=2461ae934de4

Over the past year, there have been many cases of antifa attacking conservative peaceful protests but the media reports it as "violence breaks out at right wing protest". But if you look at the video, it's clearly not the case.

Also interesting is the way they chose to present the data:
- Antifa they go back to 1994 though this group only showed up on large scale around 2016. This pushes the idea that they are a peaceful group.
- While Left Wing goes back to 2010, Right Wing they include back to 1994...presumably to make the number look bigger by taking a longer time frame. It's an odd year to use until you realize it includes the Oklahoma Bombing with 168 dead in a single incident, more than doubling the total.

These are just some of the issues I found on a quick look at CSIS, but it's enough to make me question if any of the data is reliable.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The perception that the majority of BLM protests were violent and they're "getting away with it", abetted by the media, is, um, misinformation, to try to bring this back to the thread topic.

The infamous, I was just walkin by, doin notin....and the media ate it up.

I'm sure a lot of the "protesters" were just out for some casual looting and really didn't care about the cause.

The recent comments are an excellent reason why the law that started this thread is dangerous. It makes it too easy to shut down any dissent in the name of "misinformation".

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The recent comments are an excellent reason why the law that started this thread is dangerous. It makes it too easy to shut down any dissent in the name of "misinformation".

Your previous comments raise some interesting, and thought provoking points.
How does the proposed ‘‘SAFE TECH Act’’ make it “too easy to shut down any dissent in the name of misinformation”?
I don’t recall even seeing any reference to disinformation, nor misinformation, in the proposed act.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I'm sure a lot of the "protesters" were just out for some casual looting and really didn't care about the cause.

... and how are you 'sure'? Are you not just repeating some talking points from your preferred flavour of media?

And, asking for proof, or being critical about the apparent flaws or inconsistencies in an opinion are not "shutting down dissent".

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by carlosproa

Here in Florida, as an attempt to be relevant, Governor Desantis wants to fine social media if they ban a plotician from their platform

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tam...outputType=amp

"Plot"-icia= great fredian slip.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Your previous comments raise some interesting, and thought provoking points.
How does the proposed ‘‘SAFE TECH Act’’ make it “too easy to shut down any dissent in the name of misinformation”?
I don’t recall even seeing any reference to disinformation, nor misinformation, in the proposed act.

That's the beauty of it. The authorities will almost never have to take direct action. They simply apply a chilling effect that in many ways is more effective than direct action by the authorities...they scare the social media companies enough that they don't want to touch anything that could remotely be considered misinformation or harmful...they apply algorithms (which they keep as trade secrets) to delete any posts on sensitive subjects.

Since the algorithms are secret, it's very easy for them to be more aggressive against view points they don't agree with. The net effect is shutting down free speech.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... and how are you 'sure'? Are you not just repeating some talking points from your preferred flavour of media?

And, asking for proof, or being critical about the apparent flaws or inconsistencies in an opinion are not "shutting down dissent".

An open debate is great. Asking for proof is perfectly fine in a country with free speech. Much of this discussion has side tracked into areas where it's mostly opinion or better termed interpretation.

But when the company hosting the conversation is at risk of the govt coming down on them, they aren't going to have the time to spend vetting each comment, deciding if there are any factual inaccuracies. They will simply delete comments based on key words or phrases regardless of accuracy.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

But when the company hosting the conversation is at risk of the govt coming down on them, they aren't going to have the time to spend vetting each comment, deciding if there are any factual inaccuracies. They will simply delete comments based on key words or phrases regardless of accuracy.

I believe I understand your concern, with regards to the act mentioned in the OP, or with similar legislation.

I don't think anything near that restrictive as you are suggesting would actually come to pass. From a legal point of view, it would be nonsense to ask companies to enforce a standard that's yet to be set. In other words, if government is too chicken to draw the lines, how can any company possibly enforce them?

Many US interests - internet companies, ACLU, 1st Amendment absolutists, political parties, unions - would join together to oppose something that restrictive.