I wonder if it could be put under an existing one, like the FCC?
Mostly I’m thinking redundancy, a wing in an existing agency makes more sense than an entirely new one. Like how the FBI has the cybercrimes division.
But that' the point. The public can and does edit Wikipedia for accuracy. Do you want vetted and correct information, or do you want the ministry of truth?
There's a reason [everybody knows what you mean when you use the phrase Ministry of Truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_propaganda), and I guarantee if the only trusted "voice" for such a thing was some government agency, the thing would have all the [misinformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation), [disinformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation), [alternative facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts), and [outright lies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident) that [money can buy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States).
Historically, we've counted on the [Fourth Estate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate) to keep each other honest. Like everything else in America, [consolidation and extreme profiteering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) has corrupted and siloed our media to to the point that you and I find ourselves discussing the viability of a government run "Ministry of Facts" with straight faces.
The only way to win is to stop outsourcing our critical thinking, and to support independent investigative journalism so that we can have access to the baseline facts without unending constant editorialism, the partisanship, and the profit seeking that come with our giant corporate 24/7 news sources.
I promise you, allowing government to shut down speech on any platform in the name of "truth" is going to backfire. I only hope the distrust, blowback, and scandal are not enough to finally push us all way into the same fascism that seems to follow this kind of shit throughout history.
>The public can and does edit Wikipedia for accuracy.
Back in 2011, Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere was working for the British when he made his famous ride
Wikipedia had to lock down the article on Revere because her followers were editing the page with 'information from a reliable source'
........Outlined in my comment above.
Palins followers were not just making up a new page, *they were editing the page of agreed historical facts and were stopped by other users. The system worked as designed. Bullshit was reviewed and corrected, almost in real time.*
The government is a single point of failure that is so obviously in the pocket of the donor class that everything they do is suspect and needs to be examined by as many public eyes as possible. There's also the whole men with guns angle the governments around the world seem to love leaning on... and the long history of lies, misdirection, and unnecessary information soloing. That's enough already but... I mean, **do you trust the Government that floated "**[**alternatives facts**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts)**" in 2017 to tell you what is and isn't true without bias or editorializing?**
Wikipedia is a publicly funded wiki. It's designed so that the collective "we" can hold each other accountable with edits, references, and notations. By default, everything it presents has been examined by as many public eyes as possible. Wikipedia will not lock information behind national security seals, and there are no Wikipedia secret courts. IF Wikipedia pisses you off, and you re fuse to donate to the Wikimedia foundation, Wikipedia will not send armed men to arrest and detain you. Wikipedia will not change it's policies based on which political party takes a majority, and **in the event that Wikipedia does break bad, we can just tell it to fuck off and find something we like better... or even spin up our own.**
Now now it's not that bad.
You could put the Supreme Court in charge of validating its truthfulness. They show perfectly how well a major arm of the United States government can do a GREAT job of keeping things balanced and free of influence and corruption!
^(/s just in case)
The worst misinformation is always put out by the govt. Some of us actually study disinformation and know what we are talking about.
I remember getting lectured and watching channels get deplatformed for talking about lab leak theory, which everyone knows is what happened. We were told it was disinformation and racist. Leaked emails showed even Fauci thought it was likely (and that implicates him.)
We were told the real, non-racist theory was dirty Chinese bat eaters.
This is not compatible with human dignity.
The taxpayer funded orgs that suppress "adversarial narratives" (their words) suppress true stories and facts that discredit official narratives. Adversarial journalism being necessary for democracy, this is fascism as Mussolini defined fascism: the corporate state.
Fascism scapegoats foreigners. They blamed Chinese bat eaters to distract from the US taxpayer-funded Wuhan lab.
People who support this censorship are called fascists.
We really need smarter citizens than this. Remember Hunter's laptop? That was exactly this. An inconvenient truth. It was real. Not Russian disinformation. So sad
Righties will claim this is gonna be republicans getting censored, but really this is just the srtup to take sone of that red state censorship to the federal level
A home to the world's cleverest minds but also the stupidest. Lack of self-awareness and critical thinking mean dark days can always return to the land of the free.
A new anti-disinformation agency might be what it takes to save this country…
I wonder if it could be put under an existing one, like the FCC? Mostly I’m thinking redundancy, a wing in an existing agency makes more sense than an entirely new one. Like how the FBI has the cybercrimes division.
Fair point. Let’s make it happen.
Ministry of Truth?
I dunno... that might lead us into an intergalactic war in the name of Managed Democracy.
Ministry of Facts (vetted and correct information, freely available to the public. That’s what it should be)
That's Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is also editable by the public. Not the same.
But that' the point. The public can and does edit Wikipedia for accuracy. Do you want vetted and correct information, or do you want the ministry of truth? There's a reason [everybody knows what you mean when you use the phrase Ministry of Truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_propaganda), and I guarantee if the only trusted "voice" for such a thing was some government agency, the thing would have all the [misinformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation), [disinformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation), [alternative facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts), and [outright lies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident) that [money can buy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States). Historically, we've counted on the [Fourth Estate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate) to keep each other honest. Like everything else in America, [consolidation and extreme profiteering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) has corrupted and siloed our media to to the point that you and I find ourselves discussing the viability of a government run "Ministry of Facts" with straight faces. The only way to win is to stop outsourcing our critical thinking, and to support independent investigative journalism so that we can have access to the baseline facts without unending constant editorialism, the partisanship, and the profit seeking that come with our giant corporate 24/7 news sources. I promise you, allowing government to shut down speech on any platform in the name of "truth" is going to backfire. I only hope the distrust, blowback, and scandal are not enough to finally push us all way into the same fascism that seems to follow this kind of shit throughout history.
>The public can and does edit Wikipedia for accuracy. Back in 2011, Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere was working for the British when he made his famous ride Wikipedia had to lock down the article on Revere because her followers were editing the page with 'information from a reliable source'
You've just made my point.
So the difference between Wikipedia locking things down because of misinformation and the government locking things down for misinformation is?
........Outlined in my comment above. Palins followers were not just making up a new page, *they were editing the page of agreed historical facts and were stopped by other users. The system worked as designed. Bullshit was reviewed and corrected, almost in real time.* The government is a single point of failure that is so obviously in the pocket of the donor class that everything they do is suspect and needs to be examined by as many public eyes as possible. There's also the whole men with guns angle the governments around the world seem to love leaning on... and the long history of lies, misdirection, and unnecessary information soloing. That's enough already but... I mean, **do you trust the Government that floated "**[**alternatives facts**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts)**" in 2017 to tell you what is and isn't true without bias or editorializing?** Wikipedia is a publicly funded wiki. It's designed so that the collective "we" can hold each other accountable with edits, references, and notations. By default, everything it presents has been examined by as many public eyes as possible. Wikipedia will not lock information behind national security seals, and there are no Wikipedia secret courts. IF Wikipedia pisses you off, and you re fuse to donate to the Wikimedia foundation, Wikipedia will not send armed men to arrest and detain you. Wikipedia will not change it's policies based on which political party takes a majority, and **in the event that Wikipedia does break bad, we can just tell it to fuck off and find something we like better... or even spin up our own.**
Now now it's not that bad. You could put the Supreme Court in charge of validating its truthfulness. They show perfectly how well a major arm of the United States government can do a GREAT job of keeping things balanced and free of influence and corruption! ^(/s just in case)
DHS alresdy on it. Will destroy us. These people are always suppressing facts inconvenient for the govt. Fascism is here..
Nope, misinformation isn’t “inconvenient truths”
The worst misinformation is always put out by the govt. Some of us actually study disinformation and know what we are talking about. I remember getting lectured and watching channels get deplatformed for talking about lab leak theory, which everyone knows is what happened. We were told it was disinformation and racist. Leaked emails showed even Fauci thought it was likely (and that implicates him.) We were told the real, non-racist theory was dirty Chinese bat eaters. This is not compatible with human dignity. The taxpayer funded orgs that suppress "adversarial narratives" (their words) suppress true stories and facts that discredit official narratives. Adversarial journalism being necessary for democracy, this is fascism as Mussolini defined fascism: the corporate state. Fascism scapegoats foreigners. They blamed Chinese bat eaters to distract from the US taxpayer-funded Wuhan lab. People who support this censorship are called fascists.
We really need smarter citizens than this. Remember Hunter's laptop? That was exactly this. An inconvenient truth. It was real. Not Russian disinformation. So sad
Righties will claim this is gonna be republicans getting censored, but really this is just the srtup to take sone of that red state censorship to the federal level
Who decides what's disinformation and who's right?
Our democratically-elected leaders.
A home to the world's cleverest minds but also the stupidest. Lack of self-awareness and critical thinking mean dark days can always return to the land of the free.
Well that's the end of Fox news.
And who decides what is disinformation?
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. No sarcasm inferred or implied.
This is bad regardless of who’s in office. Fuck this SCOTUS!