How do you determine that someone like Joe Rogan is a better source of information? It seems pretty lucrative to people like him, or Alex Jones (pre Sandy Hook lawsuits) and many others that promote alternate versions of many government promoted things. Like I thought a part of the story with the government being motivated with dishonest agendas was that it ultimately funneled money into their pockets. Seems way more profitable for these guys calling out those three letter agencies.
Well, he is old and retired, possibly not getting enough sleep, and lives in some podunk hillbilly town.
.
Actual emails from the three letter agencies pressuring SM companies to suppress or ban people with views contrary to official govt narrative. This is known. See the Twitter Files.
lol
I think Yoyo wants to say that the government should not have any opinion on what people say on the internet. Yoyo thinks they should not be encouraging Facebook to crackdown on misinformation of doxing or whatever. It’s a good question I think.
Probably belongs in the SCOTUS thread given there were just a few cases on this.
Doesn’t that fall in the bucket of things that those “alternative sources of information” point to that help get them big contracts on Spotify or gain followers for $$$?
It’s absolutely fair to question what limits the government should have when interacting with social media. I am not sure it crosses a “red line” for a public health agency to go to social media and point out what they believe is disinformation being circulated on a platform. Could it have been better done through public messaging? Maybe, but I think there would be criticism there as well.
However, nothing in that debate helps me conclude that Joe Rogan is a better source of information with a more honest agenda.
1 Like
It’s called jawboning, apparently. Historically the government is allowed to advise / suggest / persuade, but not coerce private entities into doing things like apply censorship rules. And these definitions (persuade vs coerce) have been refined over the years, but they are still vague and abusable.
The rules haven’t been shaped at all for Social Media, or our new Post-Truth era, but I’m not sure there’s anything really new going on.
It’s a good question anyway. I don’t know what the government should be allowed to do.
At this point, I don’t know if it matters much anyway. Social Media is generally a massive clusterfuck. And the benevolent/tyrannical actions of the US government, the Russian government, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Joe Rogan do little to make it any better or worse.
I read phrases like this not made in jest and a fear for our society’s future.
1 Like
As far as the government is concerned the answer is always transparency.
Post-Truth is the problem. Unless there is a deep pocket that is harmed by a lie anyone can lie with impunity for any reason(1). That is our system. For every fact there are an infinite number of fictions, and any good sales rep can weave a possibility into a probable belief.
- Yes there are a few exceptions such as statements in designated marketing materials. The government protects us from some of those.
1 Like
Or mace.
Or an ingredient of a bomb.
There are many other reasons besides. “In case it’s a bomb.”
Another fail.
2 Likes
I feel so much safer.
It was a funny idea anyway.
Yeah, not many bombs work without a detonator.
Also obviously the point of security is to keep the bombs from getting on the airplanes. Where they kill 300 people instead of 3. If a terrorist wanted to detonate a bomb in the airport, of course they could do so anyway.
3 Likes
On so many, many levels.
Most explosives that can cause a significant impact on flight can be made from several items that are otherwise “inert” (from an explosive stand-point) but can be dangerous once combined.
Consider elemental sodium (a metallic solid) and water:
https://www.quora.com/How-dangerous-is-the-reaction-of-a-pure-sodium-metal-and-water
Airport security is theatre. I thought everyone knew that…
6 Likes
They have banned that science experiment in many places now. Too many accidents.
It was way cool back in the 90s when you did it with a big block outside in a field.
1 Like
ell that to the people of United Airlines Flights 93 & 175 and American Airlines Flights 11 & 77.
OH WAIT! You can’t.
I agree that there are things that go way beyond what really needs to be done (e.g., shoes).
But I don’t think everything TSA is expected to do is theater.
Locking the pilots cabin fixed that, not putting shoes through metal detectors.
The liquids and shoes are all about making people feel safer and not about actual threat mitigation.
United 93 also highlights the paradigm shift of what happens when planes are used as bombs. Passengers overpower people trying to hijack the flight instead of just waiting it out.
2 Likes
I think some level of airport security is useful. Historically, there have been quite a few airplane bombings with hundreds of fatalities. Judging by the types and successes, different levels of security over time/places seems to play some role.
I’d agree it’s hard to say exactly what measures are useful, vs something that can be worked around. But the minimal-level-- screening luggage for big guns and big fat bombs hooked up to a timer seems to be a useful measure.
We implemented the full body and shoe searches after the underwear-bomber and shoe-bombers. It’s worth noting that neither of them were successful. Maybe, because it’s not that easy to make a functional underwear-bomb? Or shoe-bomb? Or laptop-bomb? (recent Russian failure)
And the liquids requirement happened after the soft-drink bombers failed. Which was due to intel. So who knows what would have happened there? We do know of a failed liquid bomb, set by the WTC guy – it only blew a hole in the plane. And a success by a random Chinese guy, who just straight up poured gasoline on his seat and lit it. Would he have succeeded on a US flight? Doubt it?
In any case, I think we made it harder and harder, and that has pushed terrorists to try crazier things, and those things usually haven’t worked well.
1 Like
Excuse you. TSA successfully catches weapons anywhere from 4.3% to 30% of the time.
3 Likes