Misinformation Laws Not Necessary, Says Meth Addict Peter Dutton : theonion

[–] darthsid@lemmy.world 24 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I can’t wait until the onion gets infowars

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 11 points 2 hours ago

I hope they deep fake Alex Jones and accuse the other one of being the fake.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 53 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Isn't that the guy that keeps exposing himself to children?

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yes, but only because the exotic phallus and scrotum piercings he has are designed to have a hypnotic effect. Then he grabs them while they're dazed.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

In his child-trafficking van with the Klan stickers on the back?

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

No, no. He's in the child trafficking van with the kkk wrap. The really gaudy one. Can't miss it.

Honestly I don't know how he drives it with that huge swastika obscuring the windshield.

[+] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz -8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

Misinformation laws can quickly get 1984-ish. In the US both political parties have different ideas on what's true and what's misinformation, I don't really like the idea of criminalizing "misinformation" when the accepted narrative will change every 4-8 years.

Edit: Surprisingly, this is now one of my most downvoted comments ever on Lemmy. Do you guys really want the government deciding what you can or can't say online?

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

"can get" implies there's examples of like misinfo laws becoming orwellian. I cannot find such examples. Laws that penalize people for knowingly lying for profit, clout, etc tend to curb bombastic discourse. These standards are common in defamation suits. Extending them to more media makes sense.

What's always orwellian is like anti terrorism laws where laws intended to curb oppositional rhetoric or groups become applied on large swaths of people.

The actual laws they prosecuted Assange for, for instance were anti espionage laws if I recall.

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Obvious examples are countries like Russia, China, North Korea, etc. Russia specifically passed laws banning misinformation in 2020, and later fined google millions of dollars over it.

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 4 points 3 hours ago

Sure, and this one probably wasn't great but also the article shows why there's of course a valuable line

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 15 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. To me the misinformation conversation just sounds like”why are the poors talking to each other instead of listening to US?”

If we had a misinformation law in 2001, would it have applied to the news outlets or gov officials who were lying about the Iraq war?

There is A real problem in how we sort out second hand evidence, it’s just that this problem didn’t magically start when social media became a thing and it won’t be fixed by returning authority to those same old institutions who were lying to us in the past.

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 4 points 2 hours ago

Maybe our entire society is sick in a way we can't fix with laws? Or something?

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -13 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This what they want...

Their real crimes to be drowned out by bullshit, so voters just write everything off as misinformation when it's a Republican, but "proof" if it's about a Dem.

Funny headline tho

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 28 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

This what they want...

Their real crimes to be drowned out by bullshit, so voters just write everything off as misinformation when it's a Republican, but "proof" if it's about a Dem.

Funny headline tho

Peter Dutton is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, he’s an Australian politician.

Funny comment tho

The Onion

The Onion