05-10-2022, 05:31 PM
(05-10-2022, 02:14 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I'd prefer new administrations not so quickly and whimsically undo previous administrations actions, so I don't get casually dismissing any concerns by thinking that the next guy can just change whatever. Especially when you're dealing with Constitutional Rights such as what the First Amendment affords.
Regarding the bolded--I am not casually dismissing any concerns that the next guy can change whatever. I am obviously VERY concerned that Trump pulled out of the TPP (effectively tanking it) and the Paris Agreement, and broke the Iran Deal--and along with it the credibility of U.S. foreign policy.
My point was that directing me to ask how I would feel when the other guy/side/ideology gets their turn misrecognizes what a new DHS department actually is. If I support an amendment changing or eliminating the electoral college, your question is valid. Eventually, the new law will favor the other side over mine. And one should not vote for such unless one can live with the other side having a turn.
But a new DHS department is structurally different. If Biden creates one, Trump and the GOP won't have to live with it if he wins in 2024. If Biden is following this thread and decides to drop the idea, nothing stops Trump from creating his own if he wins.
Hence my reference to institutions of real power, which a president cannot create or undo on his own--like the DOJ--though he may, as Trump did, convert it to a party tool through partisan appointment.
(05-10-2022, 02:14 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: You seem to genuinely have a fear of the "threat" of disinformation, especially that which you feel is coming from foreign actors. With all due respect, I think your fear is overblown. For perspective, some people have a fear of CRT being taught is schools. But your thoughts are that that fear is being overblown and used by political actors as tool to cause division. Have you ever stepped back for a second and considered the possibility that Russian and foreign disinformation are the same and being used the same way?
Well, yes, as I've been saying, I do fear the "threat" of disinformation. I "feel" some comes from foreign actors because the FBI and CIA claim to have intelligence establishing that, and have determined it is a threat to our elections and national security.
Not all of it comes from abroad though--Trump's Big Lie remains a threat to domestic security, as it continues to fuel changes in election laws and personnel at the state level, in preparation for upcoming elections.
Passing laws to eliminate CRT from schools which aren't teaching is, yes, a good example of how disinformation affects our politics--laws as well as elections.
But are you proposing that U.S. intel agencies are running a similar game, making up threat assessments to "cause division"? It sounds like you are doing that. "Fake intelligence agencies" like "fake news"?
(05-10-2022, 02:14 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Disinformation is a subjective term that exists on a spectrum ranging from blatant and misleading lie, to a difference of opinion. It has been around for as long as time. And it always will be. There's really nothing that can be done about it, short of an authoritarian and heavy handed government crackdown on free speech.
One can just as easily say any manner of bad behavior has been around for "as long as time" and "always will be."
I was going to say, "murder" for example, but "libel" might be a clearer analogy here. If we have developed workable legal definitions and evidentiary protocols for establishing when it has or has not occurred, those harmed by it can get justice well short of any authoritarian and heavy handed crackdown on free speech.
If we can identify instances of libel, and what counts as evidence for it, and assess harm, why should that be out of reach for "disinformation," which may do much greater harm to the nation than garden variety libel? If it seems more subjective than "libel" or "murder," that's only because it hasn't until now reached such threatening proportions as to require political and legal attention.
Side note: "been around" and "always will be" arguments do not have a very illustrious history, as they appear mostly to contest challenges to a status quo: think of slavery, domestic violence and "the poor." Most agree that our society has much improved because some of our ancestors rejected claims that we can do nothing about social ills, or that attempting to does more harm than good.
