Obama Signs Act - Fake News Is Now Illegal Just Deem It Foreign Propaganda

originally posted by: Greggers

Why would they fabricate a logfile they haven't revealed? Have you bothered to think this through at all?

Like I said, there is nothing they could offer that would make you believe them.

The shadow government is probably showing fake IP log files to higher up officials.... doh.

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: Greggers

Why would they fabricate a logfile they haven't revealed? Have you bothered to think this through at all?

Like I said, there is nothing they could offer that would make you believe them.

The shadow government is probably showing fake IP log files to higher up officials.... doh.

Higher up officials would have no idea how to read them. Makes no sense.

So basically, between the Smith-Mundt being ammended in the 2013 NDAA, And this blatantly Orwellian measure to establish a Counter-Propaganda program, we are just straight boned.

This whole fake news meme is getting old, and now it is becoming dangerous.

To my knowledge a bill such as this one hasn't really existed since around World War 2. ( perhaps one of the non partisan history buffs could correct me here?)

I find it ironic that the people defending this bill -or sharp shooting on the fact that it doesn't explicitly state that "fake news" is illegal, are directly quoting the part of the bill that DOES make government propaganda legal ... Which is nothing short of hillarious since that whole Appeal towards/from ambiguity argument never works on any of the "homophobic" "freedom of religion bills."

I really cant take a persons opinion on this seriously when they have no issue directly quoting the section which pitentially empowers the gov to legally disseminate propaganda or Disinfo in the form of Fact Checking.

What i want to know, is how the bills defenders can be sure of the governments altruism.
Where does this seemingly-blind trust come from? Do you realize that Donald Trump could easily use this bill in order to silence any legitimate foreign or domestic criticism against him through a massive government funded media campaign?

Its hilarious that the people who want Donald Trump to be booted from office have no issue in allowing Congress to basically hand him and the repubs one of the most powerful tools available to Totalitarians...
But its ok since this is obviously a case of legitimate bipartisan-ism *eyeroll*

Remember the amendment to Smith Mundt in the 2013 NDAA? Remember how it was downplayed by true believers? Remember [email protected]?

I think we are witnessing the new advent of state influenced media ( which people pretend doesn't exist unless the guy they hate is in office) and a form that is sinister because IT IS based on facts

It just strikes me as odd that the people crying the loudest about Fake News and alt-right wing authoritarianism are trying to introduce a bill that would essentially empower them to have a government funded media spotlight and campaign.


Honestly I don't get how American Liberals can justify any of this Red Scare fear mongering what alone a while for what is such an obvious power grab.

originally posted by: DeathShield
S
I find it ironic that the people defending this bill -or sharp shooting on the fact that it doesn't explicitly state that "fake news" is illegal, are directly quoting the part of the bill that DOES make government propaganda legal ...

So government propaganda was ILLEGAL before? That is not what this law does.

It enables government institutions to devote resources to each other toward the common goal of identifying and refuting foreign sourced propaganda, which is a real thing, despite the fact that a lot of people around here refuse to believe it (and wouldn't believe it even if they were allowed admin access to NSA/CIA servers).

Nothing is "banned." Nothing is "outlawed."

I really cant take a persons opinion on this seriously ...

We'll survive.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

So beside Various 1st Amendment issues. [Note: SCCJ Oliver Wendell Holmes did say screaming "FIRE" in a crowded Theater is not 1st Amend. protected speech.

Does this Law mean that Obama's
"Executive Order September 15, 2015 -- Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" ,

which allows the US Gov. to (leak Propaganda and Fake News to MSM), his own Order is now Illegal ?

Exec Order

View Link above.

a reply to: Greggers

They don't have to use the word "ban" to essentially suppress/ban certain types of information. What happens when you make firearms illegal? They are banned... What happens when only the government propaganda is accepted as "the gospel of truth", and every attempt is made by the government and social media, as well as mainstream media to suppress, block, and make illegal any information the "government" wants to deem as government propaganda?... This is a suppression of dissent, and essentially it is a ban on free speech since only "government propaganda as specified by progressives" is now seen as "the gospel of truth".

Yes, you are playing semantics when you are asking specifically for the word ban.

Politicians, democrat AND republican, absolutely can NOT stand the truth getting out!! They just CAN'T have it!

And, when you boil all this down, isn't that what it's all about...controlling who gets to decide what is the "truth"?

The word "news" used to roughly approximate to the word "truth", but not anymore. Sure, there's always been a little bit of 'spin' and word-smithing, but over time the deception has grown to the point where the word "news" is completely meaningless. The politicians like it this way. They're going to make you think they don't, but they do (very much so).

In the engineering field of surveying there is a term known as a "benchmark", and the benchmark serves as the reference point to which all other things can be compared. In the not so distant past there was always a benchmark for news. Things like 'spin' didn't change the benchmark or reference point. Not anymore.

When you lose the benchmark you have nothing to compare anything to, and this includes both looking forward as well as looking backward. In the context of "news", if the benchmark is lost then history is skewed, and when history is skewed politicians can do anything they want in the future because they can create their own past (out of fiction) to support it. It's all very convenient.

The notion of a controlling authority to deem certain types of "news" as illegal basically screams Ministry of Truth. In other words, someone is going to be deciding:

a.) where the benchmark is, and...
b.) what sources/stories are above or below this benchmark

The problem is (obviously), "they" (the politicians) are the ones deciding where the benchmark is, and this is fundamentally wrong.

If politicians could consistently be held accountable for their actions, if they had any transparency at all, that would be one thing, but they don't...so this is a problem.

Before we can even consider any sort of a vetting process for what is termed "news" it is absolutely imperative we level set the "truth" first. In other words, we as a people, need to establish a "benchmark" of truth first. And, until this happens politicians will always be able to hide behind their own fictionalized version of the past.

We hear terms like "the end justifying the means". Well, when there is no reference point of truth, there is no 'end' to justify because the 'means' can be anything they want it to be. Whatever crazy whim they come up with today is perfectly justifiable...because they can label any crazy thing they can dream up as fact and use this to support it.

That's my .02

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Greggers

I thought you guys were talking about Trump.

That's because you don't exert much of an effort to understand what other people are saying. That's why we get so frustrated when we try to discuss things on those massive video and meme fests you call threads.

PATHETIC!

While drinking beers the other night I popped in here, saw tail end of what they saying, and for whatever reason I thought I had seen the talks get into Trump territory (earlier, on the page before). And then did a doosh in the peanut gallery bit by posting that little ribful jab; I made an ass out of me, and umption. Puh-lease. I'm not paid, and this isn't a newspaper, while half the time I'm just hopeful for a cheap laugh. So got carried away with me WaPo censor app 'meme' I made.

So now you're going use that as an argument to poopoo and insult my megathreads, and my performance in them? You can hate and insult me all you want, I always laugh, but to look at some of my epic pieces I poured my life into to then insult the quality of presentation and integrity of my efforts, regardless of whether or not you appreciate my viewpoints and un-nerving facts, that kind of mentality is just so much wrong with this world. Yours there wasn't the first sweeping insults in this thread alone.

Look, if you had been here 10 years ago you'd have seen me shredding Dubya and the Neocon's everyday and you'd have been starring my posts and flagging my threads.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Politicians, democrat AND republican, absolutely can NOT stand the truth getting out!! They just CAN'T have it!

Exactly. Earlier I was thinking of how traditionally we've only every really gotten a small handful of total viewpoints across the MSM etc: "Republican", "Democrat", government/military and Corporatist (aka "globalist" aka NWO aka etc).

Along comes the Internet, now all manner of alternative perspectives are in our computer phones, and the upheaval paradigm starts to set in. You all know the rest.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Well, I'm not so sure this whole upheaval is a result of the Internet actually. Sure it may have something to do with it, but it's not the root cause (IMO).

I actually blame it more on advertising. Now, you may be thinking "what????" How did I get from media truth to advertising? Well, it's actually a lot more simple than it may seem.

Back when television first started there were program sponsors, but not to the extent they exist today. Back then it used to be the program first and the sponsors who supported it. Now, it's the other way around; it's profits first and the program 2nd. This is ass-backwards. So now the programming is geared toward selling advertisements. This changes the whole paradigm when it comes to things like "news".

It's not unique to television either, and here's where the Internet comes in. Back in the day newspapers used to sell advertisements (and they still do), BUT there was no internet competing with them for advertising dollars/revenue. The bigger the production, the more advertising it took to support it. So, for example, there was a lot more advertisements in the Sunday paper than the paper the rest of the week, right?

Back then newspapers could hire true "journalists" to write content. But then came the internet, and now those same newspapers were having their budgets squeezed as a result of competing mediums for advertising (television and the internet). At the same time "life" as a whole sped up with the information age, and as a result people's attention spans grew shorter. The internet had a big advantage here, again for advertising dollars. When advertisers woke up to the "hit and run" nature of society when it came to news they refocused their efforts on blindingly fast product placement. In essence product placement became King. And, when revenues for products soared across these mediums advertising revenues soared along with them. Now enter the "greed" machine...

When media distribution outlets (i.e. networks and internet providers) saw the sky was the limit for revenue they exploited it (as any good business should). But stockholders and boards of directors got even greedier. Now the revenue was coming from advertising (it always was, but in a different way), and it was overshadowing the content. So then the paradigm changed again; now the name of the game was to put something on which was sensational enough to draw the viewer, or clicker, into the advertising...and nothing more. They now realized you can't put true "content" together for 5-10 seconds of viewing...so they stopped trying. This was really the beginning of the end.

The internet had a hand in the state of today's "news", but it wasn't the root cause; society was. The state of disrepair of "news" would have wound up in the same place with or without the internet because it's a function of the society we live in more than anything else.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Politicians, democrat AND republican, absolutely can NOT stand the truth getting out!! They just CAN'T have it!

Exactly. Earlier I was thinking of how traditionally we've only every really gotten a small handful of total viewpoints across the MSM etc: "Republican", "Democrat", government/military and Corporatist (aka "globalist" aka NWO aka etc).

Along comes the Internet, now all manner of alternative perspectives are in our computer phones, and the upheaval paradigm starts to set in. You all know the rest.

Unfortunately, many of these alternate viewpoints are based upon lies. And I'm talking "easily disproven" lies where the lie is the main story, not stuff like Brian Williams lying about his war experience on a talk show.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greggers

They don't have to use the word "ban" to essentially suppress/ban certain types of information. What happens when you make firearms illegal? They are banned...

What has been "made illegal" here?

What happens when only the government propaganda is accepted as "the gospel of truth",

No one is forcing you, or any member of the media, to accept anything as "the gospel of truth."

and every attempt is made by the government and social media, as well as mainstream media to suppress, block, and make illegal any information the "government" wants to deem as government propaganda?...

You're convoluting the actions of private businesses with what this law is doing. Facebook and Google can do whatever they want. This law doesn't require them to block anything.

This is a suppression of dissent, and essentially it is a ban on free speech since only "government propaganda as specified by progressives" is now seen as "the gospel of truth".

You're wrong. First of all, just because the foreign propaganda hurt liberals this time, many on the right are just as concerned about it, evidenced by the fact that this bill was authored by a Republican and passed by a Republican Congress.

Yes, you are playing semantics when you are asking specifically for the word ban.

No. I'm asking you to show me where this law bans anything, or makes anything illegal, by ANY definition. You still haven't shown that.

You're making stuff up.

originally posted by: Greggers

Unfortunately, many of these alternate viewpoints are based upon lies. And I'm talking "easily disproven" lies where the lie is the main story, not stuff like Brian Williams lying about his war experience on a talk show.

How about the false choice paradigm. Those four viewpoints above are essentially one in the same. The "two" parties, are but infighting on the some pirate ship. Them together have maintained a hoodwinked society for generations. They've achieved it via propaganda and its ugly cousin censorship (where censorship is the language of dictators). Like when advertising back in the day went from "Hard Sell" methods of selling products for their practical values and craftsmanship, to the "Soft Sell" methods of appealing to emotions. It warped into selling people on the image they imagine themselves they'd get if having it. And after decades of can pretty only even access crap products not even worth self-fixing when they break in 9 months.

And this same process happened with politics. They're selling everyone an image (America = good, the government = good, the 2 party system = good, global imperialism = good, crony multinational corporatism = good). And along the way we've had both parties who each might have stood for truth justice and the American way, not they stand as global tyrants and domestic depots.

I know in this past decade I've observed on the mass scale, the same exact kind of stuff Bush supporters the the liberals used to go completely nuts over in a n endless barrage of critiquing and insults to 'how dumb can you Bush boot lickers be', to now they're going even more wild defending 'their' guy to the very end in all the same exact ways. I was with them versus Bush, and now they're all supporting even more hardcore measures of propaganda & censorship than Bush ever dreamed of.

Isn't there already a law about that called 'libel'? It needs to be enforced. As does 'slander', 'defamation'. Maybe they would be civil suits, so Hillary and others need to get their attorney's busy. This BS needs to stop.

a reply to: DJW001>>> Yes we have to shut down the Federal Government for promoting fake news. But what will we replace it with?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Greggers

Unfortunately, many of these alternate viewpoints are based upon lies. And I'm talking "easily disproven" lies where the lie is the main story, not stuff like Brian Williams lying about his war experience on a talk show.

How about the false choice paradigm. Those four viewpoints above are essentially one in the same. The "two" parties, are but infighting on the some pirate ship. Them together have maintained a hoodwinked society for generations.

I find much to agree with in this part of your post.

They've achieved it via propaganda and its ugly cousin censorship (where censorship is the language of dictators).

But here, I disagree. It's largely been big corporations (and wealthy individuals with media empires and their own political self-interests) responsible for the type of propaganda and censorship you're talking about. For example, William Randolph Hearst.

And there is definitely a related problem in play today, where all the mainstream media outlets are owned and operated by a small number of hugely wealthy corporations who have a vested interest in pushing certain points of view. But here, the propaganda is corporate propaganda, and the censorship is corporate censorship.

That's not to say the government doesn't spread their own misinformation. Of course they do, and will continue to. But no media outlet is required to carry it. The CIA in particular has tried to influence media, but the big corporations still have far bigger impact.

These big corporations also have their hands in the pockets of politicians, playing it from every angle.

But again, this law is NOT the product of panicked corporations. It's the result of a legitimate external threat.