this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1415 points (98.6% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

5537 readers
2911 users here now

Rules:

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Cross posted from Discuit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

How do you construct anti-propaganda laws that can't be used by bad actors to silence dissent? Genuine question if you have an answer but I don't think anyone actually does. The only actual counter to propaganda is quality education, which is where the US has been failing dramatically.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You have to target entities that knowingly lie and portray themselves as serious. Anti fraud laws with teeth.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The comment says anti-propaganda laws. I'm 100% in favor of anti-fraud laws, but propaganda is special that it's not always direct (read as: legally enforcable) lies.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A lot of them are. I think one could argue the news always saying "crime go up" is an easily provable misrepresentation and if the anti fraud laws were strong enough that a city might be able to sue large companies for such a misrepresentation, it could heavily damage the propaganda value.

Another instance: if people saying a "nobody was arrested for BLM". Then somebody arrested during BLM should have the right to sue a big outlet like fox news if they repeat the lie.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

That's still not directly anti-propaganda laws. I'm very much in favor of holding media that lies accountable, beyond just civil law.

I'm talking about propaganda as a whole, which very much includes things that aren't lies. For example, during the 2024 US election, I was bombarded with ads that used anecdotal evidence and indirect language to create a subtextual message of immigrants=criminals. The best counter to this imo, and propaganda as a whole, is education because proper education in critical thinking (which even the best US schools seem to avoid, wonder why...) would let people have the tools to know that you can't create a conclusion that big from anecdotes.

Strong anti-fraud laws encompass far more than propaganda and are a low hanging fruit of creating a just society, which is why I'm focusing on anti-propaganda specifically and how someone would avoid creating a perfect tool for abuse by a bad actor. I'm not doing this to be facetious or anything, I want to know if anyone has already come up with an approach to this problem

[–] smayonak@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

So far all anti propaganda laws were passed in totalitarian states to suppress dissidents. But I think a good start would be to look at pre-existing limitations on free speech. Can you shout "fire" in a crowded theater just for funsies? No? Then we've already got a public safety caveat in our right to free speech. So you can't say something that will kill people IF IT IS A LIE. There are also time place and manner restrictions on free speech. So we agree there is a time and place where you can criticize the state. So we sort of believe that during public emergencies, such as during a pandemic, you cannot spread lies about the pandemic.

There are ways to prove lies.