_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
Cross posted from Discuit
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1413 points (98.6% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
5537 readers
2327 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
You have to target entities that knowingly lie and portray themselves as serious. Anti fraud laws with teeth.
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.
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.
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
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.