Dear Paul,

A king once went out to his garden and saw his jester running all over with a wet shirt holding a toilet roll. So he asked his jester:

K. Why is your shirt wet?
J. A bird pooed on and stained my best shirt, so I had to immediately wash it.
K. I see that the stain is already gone, so why are you running with this toilet roll?
J. I must now find the bird and clean off its bum!

«My question is; How do you make that person responsible for what they say, and how do you call them out when they lie?»

So you care that much for this poor fellow, that liar, wanting them to become responsible and understand that lying is no good? Wipe their dirty bum that is?

Why not look at your own shirt and how it got stained?

«Today in our modern society with mass communications though the internet and television etc, a person with access, can influence millions within an instant.»

Exactly. Here lies the real problem!
That person has no power to influence me, because I neither do social-media nor have a television.

- Do consider how you got into this mess in the first place.

Hi Paul,

"Today in our modern society with mass communications though the internet and television etc, a person with access, can influence millions within an instant. My question is; How do you make that person responsible for what they say, and how do you call them out when they lie?"

Why the need micromanage everything?
You're telling me were in 1984 and kids need to be corrected on Santa and the tooth fairy.

Why this incessant need to control what everyone thinks.

You can threaten the people with police and fines to the point they self censor, but you can't control what people think, and many will hate you and the country for this new authoritarianism.

I need to get back to John response to my earlier rant, and the questions he laid out for me with some bigger examples.
- So this is mostly directed towards him.

[Cont.]
What if I criticise Israel on merit and that's considered antisemitic?
Do you actually expect me to turn a blind eye to the mass killing of women kids and journalists, when we all know the real game is ethnic cleansing for an apartheid state and land theft.
What the hell does the West even stand for?
What if hypothetically I conscientiously supported Hezbollahs actions, because I think there needs to be some pushback against Israels total disregard for human life?
What if I support things that go against the official narrative 'Russian disinformation' for example. and that these opinions are an extension of my true beliefs, after looking at the facts.
And what if I say the entire Covid thing was built on lies 'wet market' [rolls eyes] and the vaccine manufacturers knew there was side effects, and what if a say 'The Voice' thing was more than 1 page because I saw the full document?

I bet Albo couldn't even define what a woman is if asked.
We've seen the men all stand there blank faced and pee themselves when asked and we've seen it time and again, and they want me to convince me these people have some kind of monopoly on the truth?

Well they don't, but I suppose we can embrace 1984 if that's the way the majority want to go.
Back when 1984 was written, it was said that in the future, the new authoritarianism would come from the liberal democracies.
- Seems true to me, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion.

'Voice' what about my damn voice?

And what happens if one likes to engage in stories / folklore which can't easily be proven?

This is a story about a bloke who claims to have seen 'creatures' near the Bunyip hole near Rockhampton.

The Bunyip's Gonna Get You! - Dogman Encounters Episode 530
http://www.youtube.com/live/WRWVDbT5K3Q

Is it misinformation or disinformation or folklore?

What if I said the Iranians sought the assistance of the creatures from 'Mars Attacks'
These guys - http://www.amazon.com.au/Mars-Attacks-Jack-Nicholson/dp/0790731452

And that the Nevatim air base housing Israels F-35s were attacked by UFOs and alien creatures, the question is 'Do I need to be corrected'?

And what about people just trying to make sense of what happened after some particular event?

Are they not allowed to engage in theories, when those in charge decide they don't wish to release all the info?

Human beings are going to do what human beings do.
This whole thing is a big can of worms.
Nobody's ever going to be able to understand the rules when some decide that some lies are acceptable, others are not and we all all supposed to know the difference.

Fester,

Thanks for the link. I can’t access it due to the paywall, but I suspect Coatsworth is reiterating what ttbn mentioned he’d said earlier in the thread.

I respect Coatsworth’s opinion as an authority on the handling of the pandemic. But, unless he can elaborate on the mechanisms by which he feels his concerns could come to fruition, that’s all they are - opinions. I have concerns about the Bill, too, but have not yet had the need or the opportunity to express them here due to the level of hyperbole to counter.

(By the way, I find it incredibly ironic that the Bill is becoming a victim of the very thing it is trying to reduce - misinformation.)

What I also have concerns about, however, is the cost to lives and the interference to democratic processes that misinformation and disinformation are having, and this is what virtually none of the commentary is discussing.

We are well and truly living in a post-truth world now where facts don’t matter - only emotions. And there are people on social media making a lot of money and a name for themselves by monetizing misinformation because it’s so easy to tap into people's fears and get them worked up about something.

Facts are dry, boring, and a lot less lucrative - which is why using them to counter organised misinformation campaigns, driven by social media algorithms and public ready to be outraged over something, is proving ineffective.

While the Coalition says that it will oppose Albanese’s M.A.D Bill, Liberal Senator Jane Hume has said yes, they will oppose it, but “will deliver its own policy prior to the election”.

I take that to mean that they will make a different sort of attack on public speech. They are all for replacing parents deciding what their kids can and cannot see; and they are on board with digital ID - type surveillance. And, let's not forget interfering with social media was Scott Morrison’s idea before he got the Big A from the electorate. The Coalition is hiding behind twaddle like “digital safety” and “protection of children”.

Hume (a Liberal wet) said in 2021 that: “Misinformation is dangerous. Ignore those pushing it, like Clive Palmer. Let’s stick to the National Plan, get vaccinated and get back to the lives that we want”. Who would trust her! She supported what has now been proved as misinformation around Covid.

We cannot trust any of the bastards in the Uniparty.