tgw

I could only provide examples of "possible lies" that should be investigated and prosecuted if the lie is proven. As Trump does it for political gain, every lie he tells to the media is worth a sanction. One example would be the phone call with the head of the scouts: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/those-calls-to-trump-white-house-admits-they-didnt-happen.html Appropriate in this case would be for the liar to cover the costs of the investigation and legal costs as well as being forced to publicly apologize for lying.

I'm different from you, I will gladly review any credible links/sources you cite for these claims.

350 million: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/18/boris-johnson-350-million-claim-bogus-foreign-secretary current lies ... of course Trump is a serial offender in this department. I don't know if you require examples of his lies, there are many to choose from. I have been looking for lies from the democrats or left-leaning politicians of other nations, but came short in the short time I searched, maybe you have some examples ? I'm sometimes watching pro-democrat commentators on youtube spinning some things and I get sick of it. yes, they misrepresent facts too.

sadly, disinformation is present in many media on all political sides and many countries. and I would say you pinning it on Western media is misrepresentation.

Prosecution should be mandatory for lies made in media and politics with the goal of political gain or monetary gain upon a citizen's complaint with proof of the lie. An example of a clear-cut lie is Nigel Farage's 350 million pound for the NHS lie. It was made for political gain in a matter of the highest importance for the destiny of a nation. He should never have been allowed in politics again. In your example of the flat earth, it is indeed a clear-cut fact. But here is to consider which claim is misleading - people saying Earth is round are approximatively correct, and the claim isn't misleading - it warrants a mandatory publication of a clarification. People affirming the earth is flat should be fined. Instead, they could have presented "physical or mathematical proof in favour of a flat earth theory". And neither should be silenced. They can publish what they want, and then suffer consequences if they lied. see:

"how to decide what is true and what not" research provides us with reliable facts. when reliable facts tell another story then the claim that was made is a lie. the goal is not to reach a conclusive end for each and every claim made, nor to control politics or media. the goal is to prosecute enough lies so that the deterrence effect is enough to keep media and politics for the most part honest. bias is the reason why I concentrate on clear-cut cases leaving no room for interpretation. bias can't apply there.

all speech should be free, but lies and disinformation will come back to bite their author with consequences if proven wrong. Neutral body, etc. courts, process, fact checking ... all details for which I already said I have no clear idea on. One thing I have a clear idea on, is that all sides of politics should be involved in fact checking. And then ideally, the goal would be to present clear-cut cases to some sort of court or even a proper court which will then rule about the lie and apply the statutory penalties. The clear-cut cases would have proven facts as a basis, leaving no room for interpretation and the court would then rule on that basis. In the wake of what happened on social media in the past years, I consider this to be a matter of national security for democracies. Truth in politics and media.

I already said that the question of what is truth and lie should be determined by some kind of neutral process, as well as a legal/judicial recourse. I don't know in detail how that would look, but of course, neutrality should be guaranteed, I guess one way is to let the opposing party research the facts and details and then present their case. the main thing is that lies, disinformation and misrepresentations should be outlawed from politics and media. (BTW, I am also in favour of banning lawyers from lying in legal matters) I don't get your insistence in dragging me and my personal opinion into the decision making process. is your real name "Tom Cotton" ?

yes. by definition "parties" aren't fair, they lobby for their members. unions do have many good sides to them, but also some bad sides, for example they can unduly pressure businesses and governments into giving too many advantages to workers which leads to an erosion of the economy. one good example of that is France. so it's not good when unions become too powerful, especially when the union is aligned with a political party. a factory workers' union for example would be aligned with socialists / communists and help their political agenda by blackmailing businesses. now, where does the point of equilibrium between defending workers' rights and abuse of union's power lies is a good question for which I don't have a good answer right now.

absolutely not. honest speech should be absolutely free within the limitations of truth

I didn't applaud when Trump got banned. They should have kept Trump on and then community-commented and fact checked every one of his posts.

I wouldn't say a puppet. But maybe an accomplice.

yes, I know what he did. Musk is an AH. There was no reason for him to buy Twitter other than for promoting Trump's and Putin's interests. I am just hoping he's under investigation.

oh I do! they should just not be allowed to: - lie, misrepresent, mislead, spread disinformation and propaganda - be funded or paid by a criminal, antidemocratic foreign power

The purchase of Twitter is very suspect, and then he promoted TENET media. He also unblocked many pro-Russian accounts on Twitter. I don't believe he's clean.

let's hope the FBI finds enough proof to take down Musk as well.

lol, then you don't know what the irm command does ... talk about clueless. the download URL even is in the "one line command" ... :facepalm: you really shouldn't comment on IT threads

you know he's just a Ruzzian shill.

no. what you describe is just one way it can be used. the script will activate the stuff either way.

I didn't look at the code, but downloading a third party script from the internet using powershell with admin privileges is a huge security risk. Be sure to properly vet the operator and the script itself before using it. I'd be interested to know what threat assessors are saying about it, but even if a group like the CCC gives it a clean bill of health, this still wouldn't mean it's without risk since the payload can change any time, or the server might serve a different script depending on who/where the client is.

lol, the game he plays is so obvious, he must really be desperate

let's hope the FBI doesn't drop the ball this time ...

there is absolutely no chance of Mongolia arresting Putin. Mongolia is completely landlocked between Russia and China and is a feeble power. They have absolutely no say in anything.

now you are moving goalposts. so I assume you accepted my correct interpretation of the guarantees given prior to the reunification of Germany. let's turn the pages of the schoolbook to why European and NATO doors progressively closed on Putin. regarding the contents of your post I am quoting now, what you say is correct, and NATO was quite open to a partnership with Russia. there was indeed no list of countries, etc. everyone was quite open to welcome a democratic Russia in the community. during the Yetzin phase there was much hope for a partnership with the CIS / ex-Soviet states, despite Russia's rather ambivalent role during the war in Yugoslavia. but that definitely changed when Putin came to power, for the most part it changed because of how he got into power, and what he did with that power. By the year 2000, Western and ex-Soviet states leaders already had a pretty clear idea of who Putin is and knew about some things he had done, which put an end to all hopes of a harmonious cooperation, and which also prompted most of Russia's ex-Soviet neighbors to want to join NATO because they felt the looming threat. Unfortunately, Western leaders didn't have a clear idea of what else Putin was up to. There are some great broadcasts available on youtube about exactly that subject. unfortunately, I didn't save the URLs

you are being ridiculous. the context was reunification of Germany, and the discussions and documents repeatedly reference "NATO jurisdiction", which only makes sense within Germany. Because, obviously, very obviously, so obviously that it's obvious for anyone - except for pro-Ruzzian trolls - there cannot be any "NATO jurisdiction" except within NATO members. QED.