It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.
Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options.
And ignoring the point of the proposal. That's cherry picking. The proposal concerns advertising. That's the only reason the FEC might have anything to do with it.
I'm responding to that.
Disinformation advertising has key features that should guide our plans in how to reduce and combat it. It undermines our sense of a verifiable truth, it splinters the electorate with divisive messages, it has very little transparency attached, and its financing is difficult to trace.
No. Pointing out that something is political advertising and may not be factual or simple opinion.
Nudging people to not view speech the government defines as wrong.
Yes.And the president wants to make it easier to prevail in such law suits. Is that a good thing?
We already have Libel laws aplenty do we not?
I don't see that being part of the proposals. I do see a call for accountability in a certain form of speech, political advertising.
What is to be gained by government regulators deciding what speech may or may not be shared online
On the contrary, I have addressed the part you object to. More than once.
Again you are ignoring the part of the document I'm objecting to.
I suppose that banning ATS members who post hoaxes is an attempt to stifle speech as well? Disallowing links to certain websites? Autohoaxing certain youtube channels? Or is it a way to provide accountability?
No matter how you frame it, it's an attempt to stifle speech.
Nudge social media users to not view disputed content.
Do you think that FEC regulation of other media is overbearing? Stifling?
If being opposed to more regulation of speech is "shameful" I'll wear that insult from you Phage.
As a vague proposal. No, it doesn't scare me in the least. I don't see how anything like that could be implemented.
If that does not scare you
Others, like memes, are free to create.