7 hours ago, tgw said:

 

My thoughts when opening the OP were solely about facts and and misrepresenting facts. I think the requirement for truth should apply the same to left/right conservatives/liberals etc.

 

I think outright lying and misrepresenting facts is not OK, especially in politics. I'm not against theories, but they must be clearly presented as such.

 

So do you think any one that regurgitates the lie the Trump said there were good white supremacists should be taken to task for it?

3 hours ago, mikebike said:

WTF??? Offence w/mandatory prosecution upon a FREAKING COMPLAINT???? 

 

Methinks you haven't thought that through...

 

it's really simple, a complaint triggers an investigation - could be a really short one, such as the authority in charge giving the author a certain time for providing proof of what he's saying. If a lie with the goal to mislead the public for monetary or political gain is established, then prosecution is mandatory.

52 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

it's really simple, a complaint triggers an investigation - could be a really short one, such as the authority in charge giving the author a certain time for providing proof of what he's saying. If a lie with the goal to mislead the public for monetary or political gain is established, then prosecution is mandatory.

Who decides what a lie is? 

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Who decides what a lie is? 

 

Some sort of court. With appeal possibilities.

It's yet to be defined.

The main question is if we want to tolerate lying politicians or lying media.

On 8/19/2024 at 4:13 PM, HappyExpat57 said:

If it's blatant, black-and-white disinformation, report it and the folks behind the scene will remove it. Otherwise, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as wrong as it may be.

 

I had more than a few of susan's posts removed when they were out and out lies.

The biggest and worst troll on here who changes his name more often than I change my underwear

4 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

Some sort of court. With appeal possibilities.

It's yet to be defined.

The main question is if we want to tolerate lying politicians or lying media.

You don’t know what a lie is?

23 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You don’t know what a lie is?

 

I know, you know, maybe we'll agree to disagree on some - the problem is to achieve a broad consensus in labelling something a lie.

 

The title in the paper posted earlier in this thread would certainly qualify - unless they can produce hard and credible evidence that Labour has or had such a project.

5 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

I know, you know, maybe we'll agree to disagree on some - the problem is to achieve a broad consensus in labelling something a lie.

 

The title in the paper posted earlier in this thread would certainly qualify - unless they can produce hard and credible evidence that Labour has or had such a project.

So would comic books qualify? 

 

What about comics? 

 

What about comedians? 

 

On 8/19/2024 at 6:03 PM, HappyExpat57 said:

You haven't seen susan for a while, have you.

Because he is in OZ

43 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Because he is in OZ

What, no internet there?

2 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

What, no internet there?

I am in OZ and have internet but he is asleep at time different

16 hours ago, jas007 said:

someone can figure out a way to allow only real people to post.

 

How about a mandatory Digital ID card   must be used to sign into any internet medium...hey it could also  be your passport, drivers license,bank account authenticator ,store medical details in case of an emergency,allow seamless access to government services,keep track of your "carbon footprint"   all so very safe and easy surely everyone will want one  what could possibly go wrong ???

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

So would comic books qualify? 

 

What about comics? 

 

What about comedians?

 

same rules as now - fiction/humour/comedy is exempt from the truthfulness requirement.

although fiction/humour should be marked as such if the parody/comedy is not obvious to a 6 year old child.

 

11 hours ago, tgw said:

 

Some sort of court. With appeal possibilities.

It's yet to be defined.

The main question is if we want to tolerate lying politicians or lying media.

Easy to check data. Although with 818,000 recent job adjustments who knows.

I keep it simple. People who abuse me, or post stuff I know to be lies, go on ignore.

 

There's also the stupid ones. They remind me of the Dilbert quote: " Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I keep it simple. People who abuse me, or post stuff I know to be lies, go on ignore.

 

There's also the stupid ones. They remind me of the Dilbert quote: " Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".

 

Putting them on ignore does not prevent the damage they are doing to public opinion or prevent them from amplifying each other.
Even worse, it prevents calling them out and disproving their lies.

1 hour ago, tgw said:

 

Putting them on ignore does not prevent the damage they are doing to public opinion or prevent them from amplifying each other.
Even worse, it prevents calling them out and disproving their lies.

True. However, if everyone ignored them, it would be like one hand clapping.

11 hours ago, tgw said:

 

same rules as now - fiction/humour/comedy is exempt from the truthfulness requirement.

although fiction/humour should be marked as such if the parody/comedy is not obvious to a 6 year old child.

 

But it come back to what constitutes a lie.

 

Is repeating a lie, the same as lying?

 

If you say something you believe to be true, are you lying? 

 

Is cutting a phrase out of context a lie? 

 

Is misquoting someone a lie? 

 

It is a terribly slippery slope, and almost completely subjective. 

 

The first to be taken to task should be anyone calling themself a “fact-checker”. 

 

“If you want less lying in politics and media, first thing you have do is quit lying.”

 

Everyone seems to think that because the can point to someone else lying, it is an excuse for them to lie. 

 

Is the paper above something people consider a newspaper? it does no look like it. It looks like a tabloid. 

 

 

 

 

On 8/19/2024 at 11:47 PM, still kicking said:

He had many names and has been suspended a few times he is just a troll never take any notice of him.

You or I might be aware of that (I am not) but newbies may be easily and sorely misled

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

But it come back to what constitutes a lie.

 

Is repeating a lie, the same as lying?

 

If you say something you believe to be true, are you lying? 

 

Is cutting a phrase out of context a lie? 

 

Is misquoting someone a lie? 

 

It is a terribly slippery slope, and almost completely subjective. 

 

The first to be taken to task should be anyone calling themself a “fact-checker”. 

 

“If you want less lying in politics and media, first thing you have do is quit lying.”

 

Everyone seems to think that because the can point to someone else lying, it is an excuse for them to lie. 

 

Is the paper above something people consider a newspaper? it does no look like it. It looks like a tabloid. 

 

 

 

 

As I recall, I have seen you about for a long time, and I that reason do not doubt your sincerity.  
 

However, it reads like part of the (Putin) War On Truth, encouraging doubt on all sides because of the incredulity of one side or another.

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

But it come back to what constitutes a lie.

 

Is repeating a lie, the same as lying?

>> if knowing it's a lie, then yes

 

If you say something you believe to be true, are you lying? 

>> depends. did someone already prove it to be lie ? to what end is the lie told ? is the person telling the lie foolish ? or rather well informed and the lie is intentional ?

 

Is cutting a phrase out of context a lie?

>> in itself no, if used to misrepresent someone's opinion or statements, then yes.

 

Is misquoting someone a lie? 

>> intentional: yes. and it's fraud too. even worse if it's done to disparage the person.

 

Is the paper above something people consider a newspaper? it does no look like it. It looks like a tabloid.

>> a short mention just under its title that the "paper" is satire and not real news would be satisfactory. remember the 6 year old and persons with low IQ

 

Information should be accessible and satire, fiction, humour should be identifiable.

 

the latter becomes even more important now that AI reads all this crap and needs to be told what is a joke and what not.

On 8/19/2024 at 5:23 PM, mogandave said:

I think all the stupid lying Trump supporters should be banned. 

What about the "stupid, lying" Kamala/Walz/Democrat supporters?   Their "stupid lies" are ok?

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Their "stupid lies" are ok?

Of course their lies are accepted and amplified/whitewashed  because they are side wielding the power at the present moment...when the pendulum swings the other way all of a sudden they will be  out shouting about "censorship"  "freedom of speech"

Orange man bad  etc etc    total hypocrites.

19 hours ago, mogandave said:

The first to be taken to task should be anyone calling themself a “fact-checker”.

Those so called "fact checkers" are almost always completely biased

I take no heed of what they say what so ever and make up my own mind on a subject  after reading,watching and listing to many different sources of information... you know  they try denigrate

 "do your own research" as if only "right wing" "Qanon"

"conspiracy nutters" would do it ( reading)

but is more important now than ever before.

3 hours ago, johng said:

Those so called "fact checkers" are almost always completely biased

I take no heed of what they say what so ever and make up my own mind on a subject  after reading,watching and listing to many different sources of information... you know  they try denigrate

 "do your own research" as if only "right wing" "Qanon"

"conspiracy nutters" would do it ( reading)

but is more important now than ever before.

Would a right winger ever want to start a fact checking website? No.

11 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Would a right winger ever want to start a fact checking website? No.

 

I'm a right winger and I want the facts checked and liars punished,

21 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Would a right winger ever want to start a fact checking website? No.

No, probably they would leave it up to the individual to weed out the facts from fiction themself   as it should be.

16 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

I'm a right winger and I want the facts checked and liars punished,

How do you feel about the lies President Biden told in he speech Monday, should he be taken to task for those? 

 

And if so, how?

No name calling please!

18 hours ago, tgw said:

 

Is repeating a lie, the same as lying?

>> if knowing it's a lie, then yes

 

If you say something you believe to be true, are you lying? 

>> depends. did someone already prove it to be lie ? to what end is the lie told ? is the person telling the lie foolish ? or rather well informed and the lie is intentional ?

 

Is cutting a phrase out of context a lie?

>> in itself no, if used to misrepresent someone's opinion or statements, then yes.

 

Is misquoting someone a lie? 

>> intentional: yes. and it's fraud too. even worse if it's done to disparage the person.

 

Is the paper above something people consider a newspaper? it does no look like it. It looks like a tabloid.

>> a short mention just under its title that the "paper" is satire and not real news would be satisfactory. remember the 6 year old and persons with low IQ

 

Information should be accessible and satire, fiction, humour should be identifiable.

 

the latter becomes even more important now that AI reads all this crap and needs to be told what is a joke and what not.

Repeating a lie is okay if you don’t know it’s a lie, correct? 

 

You did not answer the question. The assumption is that teller believes it to be true. 

 

We agree

 

Do six year olds not have parents? In any event, as long as you put a small disclaimer that there may be falsehoods, you can say whatever you like?

 

So no opinions, assumptions or conclusions?

 

But AI has no access to print news. 

 

We have a situation in the US, where one party controls the government, education. news media, big tech, culture, finance and healthcare. Who gets to decide what the truth is?