It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

  • mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well it’s likely because both sides have seen instances where something that is absolutely true be silenced with a “disinformation” or “false news” justification. In recent memory, it has been more “left supporting” news stories that have been silenced than “right supporting” ones that have been falsely silenced. But in recent memory:

    • Joe Biden’s son’s laptop. Later confirmed to not be Russian and to be accurate.
    • Various emails from the Clinton Campaign being leaked. Claimed to be faked but largely proven accurate at the time of the leak (via DKIM) and with future legal action.
    • Several stories about Biden’s declining health. Some of these during the primary pissed of the Bernie wing of the party for being silenced, some during the general pissed off Trump supporters. Biden is 80 years old. Everyone 80 years old has declining health but discussion of it was generally verboten.
    • “Lab Leak Hypothesis” Still not proven true or false but believable enough that several government agencies believe it to be credible.
    • Origins of the “Russia Collision” story being a person affiliated with Clinton/DNC.

    And there’s a long list of obviously biased “fact checkers” making obvious mistakes. Like claiming Romney was lieing when he accurately predicted the outcome of Obamacare a claim that they would call the lie of the year on behalf Obama for repeating in 2013. I pick on polifact for being left leaning but there’s similar right wing “fact checkers” doing similarly biased fact checks.

    • Franklin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The only reason he accurately predicted the outcome of Obamacare is because as soon as Republican states no longer had a democratic leadership to contend with they gutted the programs and made them a hollow form of their former selves. Predicting that isn’t exactly rocket science if you’re the one causing it.

      As for all your other stuff I don’t think we need to go farther than bringing up Clinton’s emails to see that your arguments are reaching.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only reason he accurately predicted the outcome of Obamacare is because as soon as Republican states no longer had a democratic leadership to contend with they gutted the programs and made them a hollow form of their former selves. Predicting that isn’t exactly rocket science if you’re the one causing it.

        That’s not actually true. Once the plans were no longer eligible to add new members in; they became plans that could no longer add news subscribers into; meaning that the Insurance companies would have an ever decreasing group of people to pool their money with; making the plans ever more risky. Most of those plans stopped being offered long before Republican governors choose to not expand Medicare coverage.

        As for all your other stuff I don’t think we need to go farther than bringing up Clinton’s emails to see that your arguments are reaching.

        https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

        These emails are valid emails. They’re not fakes. During the election; media outlets treated them as if they were fakes.

        • Franklin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They weren’t able to add more because a Republican Congress cut down approved funding to do so.

          The emails exist and were on a personal email server that was not approved which was a security breach. The same as it was a security breach when Trump did it on his personal phone.

          It’s not okay but it’s not as big of a deal as you’re making it, moreover it’s been well reported that she renounced it apologized and since corrected it, so it’s more to the point that it doesn’t support your original argument.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They weren’t able to add more because a Republican Congress cut down approved funding to do so.

            The “like your plan you can keep it” depended on private insurance continuing to offer plans that would not be tax advantaged. No additional funding was needed to see that that wasn’t going to be viable.

            It’s not okay but it’s not as big of a deal as you’re making it, moreover it’s been well reported that she renounced it apologized and since corrected it, so it’s more to the point that it doesn’t support your original argument.

            At the beginning of the scandal, the content of those emails were treated as faked and the first response from the media was to self censor stories about them.

            That’s actually part of what made it a bigger story, is that when it later came out that they were real instead of people finding out about it months and months ago they found out in bits and pieces over time. In that instance the censorship actually likely hurt the Clinton’s more than it helped; but the outrage is still felt mostly on the right as they saw it as another in a long line of censorship decisions that targeted the right.

            • Franklin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I can honestly tell you that no one thought they were they were skeptical of the source, once they were authentic not one outlet called them fake.

              And report after report shows the opposite of what you claim. Right wing News is favored on almost all online platforms and much of network news

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They were never able to be called unauthenticated. They were published with DKIM signatures from the beginning.

                • Franklin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  you’re confusing skepticism with oppression people taking a moment to believe something from Julian assange isn’t censorship, He’s not exactly the most trustworthy of sources no matter how much proof he brings up but once it was clear and it was pretty quick I think pretty much everyone bought on

                  • mwguy@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Has WikiLeaks every published a false leak? Why would he not be trustworthy?