this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
88 points (97.8% liked)

Canada

7134 readers
300 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As our government becomes more and more polarized, what can we do to ensure that facts and data hold out?

I'm not suggesting that lying should be illegal (in fact, it's often unintentional), but when an MPs statement can later be proven to be false, shouldn't they be forced to publicly apologize?

The truth shouldn't be political.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And how do you determine the truth, exactly?

There isn't a magical bell that rings when someone lies. Science changes, public consensus changes, new facts surface, and opinions are just opinions.

Of course if an MP makes an easily disproven statement that's one thing, but most things that could be said are complex and very hard to define as either true or false.

I don't necessarily disagree that there should be extra checks for truth in politics, but I don't really think there can be such a thing, objectively.

[–] DeanFogg@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Straight up false statements(lies) and especially those with intent to deceive or persuade should be punished

[–] Conowelle@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Who decides what a false statement is? Imagine if Trump had the power to appoint that person (ik it’s Canada, it’s to point out how someone who doesn’t care about truth could appoint the person who decides what truth is)

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fact check. If someone fact checks you and finds that your statement was false then you are sanctioned. It doesn't have to be a magic bell. If someone's fact checking team looks into what you said and comes back the next day and says "point of order, what xyz said yesterday was a lie and here is the proof" they get a sanction.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where does exaggeration fit? Anti-vaxxers play up vaccine side effects. They happen, but very very rarely. If an MP spends a bunch of time talking about them and saying a vaccine is risky, they haven't made a false statement.

On top of that, the Right has made political hay saying the media and Snopes are biased against them. Parties here would do the same.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, they always complain that the fact checkers are all leftists and biased but they never set up their own fact checking. Go ahead and fact check the truth, I fucking dare you. Even if they did the actual fact checkers would fact check their fact checking and expose their meta lies.

Maybe they should have a points system. Exaggeration could be marked on a scale. You get so many exaggeration points and you get a sanction.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“point of order, what xyz said yesterday was a lie and here is the proof”

And how do you establish that is not a lie? Proof that a statement was false does not prove that the falsehood was stated intentionally. The person may have simply been misinformed, misspoke, or otherwise didn't know any better, in which case it would not be a lie.

[–] cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

It’s up to voters to hold politicians to account on this, but voters don’t and so why would they care about any other system that does.

If a politician says climate change is fake and they agree it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, they’ll just accuse the moderator of bias.