this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
625 points (97.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

30045 readers
696 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Or maybe we require large newspapers and other single owner/large audience influencers to cite sources if they make claims and make them liable if it turns out to be false… […]

Well, defamation laws do exist ^[1]^. Other than things like that, I think one should be very careful with such times of laws as, imo, they begin encroaching rather rapidly on freedom of speech.

References

  1. "Defamation". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-09T15:41Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T07:02Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Laws_by_jurisdiction.
    • §"Laws by jurisdiction".
[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Defamation is very far away from our current situation. Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable.

There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government but that is what we have assasins for.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

[…] There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government […]

For clarity, are you referring to the government abusing the judicial system to silence someone with opinions they don't like?

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Among other potential abuses, yes.

People and companies have abused the judicial system as long as it has been in place. We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

[…] that is what we have assasins for.

Imo, this isn't sustainable in a stable, and civil society.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

That is correct. It neither needs to be nor is a society that allows abuse of power „civil“.

This new development showed that the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote, although a horrific and regrettable one.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

[…] Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable. […]

I'm unfamiliar with those specific laws. Could you cite what your referring to for my reference?

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

No problem: the digital services act and the digital markets act. The best write up I could find ad hoc is this

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Defamation is very far away from our current situation. […]

How so? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "make them liable if it turns out to be false" — I think it's possible that defamation wouldn't account for all possibilities, but I think it's at least one thing that is covered by what you are talking about.