No, I understood that, mhaze.

//My point is that [the diversity of views] is what terrifies the elites and why they are fighting back.//

Noted (again).

//I'm not saying the suppression is already occurring, just that it will occur if ...//

I know, which is why I had said: "It’s one thing to anticipate possibilities; it’s another to treat them as inevitable outcomes."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372417

//It's probably comforting to the censors that there are hordes of people such as yourself who see all this as just trying to stop misinformation.//

That’s projection.

You’re implying that anyone who disagrees with your framing is gullible/indoctrinated, as if you couldn’t possibly be wrong. That mindset makes your own views less testable and more like faith.

//But remember that today's misinformation is often tomorrow’s fact.//

It appears you believe you have some examples for us. Lets take a look at them:

//It was disinformation to say that...//

--COVID originated in the Wuhan labs.

It was a hypothesis, not disinformation. The disinformation came from people claiming certainty (e.g. "it was definitely engineered"). That distinction matters.

--the young were safe from death against COVID.

That was an oversimplification, but not disinformation. Risk to young people was statistically lower - and that nuance was widely discussed.

--the FBI was embedded in the J6 crowds.

And it still is disinformation. Those agents were there in response to the riot. They weren't planted there to incite violence.

--the Obama regime spied on Trump.

No, that wasn't disinformation - just an unproven claim. At the time at least. Now that we know more about the situation, repeating the claim can indeed be regarded as disinformation.

--Trump didn’t collude with the Russians in 2016.

No, it wasn't disinformation. You're being precious here. Even Mueller said he couldn’t establish criminal conspiracy, but the campaign did welcome Russian help, and there were dozens of contacts.

--electricity prices would rise as renewables rose.

If the intention is to make renewables look inherently expensive, then it's still disinformation. Correlation vs causation.

//Disinformation is one of those words that people use to dress-up censorship.//

Apparently not.

Fester,

You’ve accused me of lying again - not just once, but as a kind of character trait of mine - yet still haven’t quoted a single lie. That’s not an argument. It’s a smear.

You use this accusation to pre-emptively discredit anything I say and avoid the burden of rebutting what I've already said. Yet, you've never once pointed to any of these lies - not even when I allegedly uttered them.

//You say there’s no absolute truth, but then claim the Uluru Statement is a single page.//

I haven't said there's no absolute truth. In fact, I'll give you one now: everything is what it is, and nothing is neither or both.

Back to the topic: The Uluru Statement is a single-page document. That’s a fact. The rest - as I explained over a year ago - is accompanying material. If you’re still pretending that’s unresolved, you’re not arguing in good faith.

//You’re the one advocating change... so you’re the paranoid one?//

That's a non sequitur.

Advocating reform doesn't necessitate paranoia - especially when you present data, context, and reasoning. You’re the one warning of dystopias just over the horizon, driven not by a clear chain of cause and effect, but by imagined intentions and vague "elites."

//That I have experienced your lying firsthand...//

What you’ve experienced is disagreement. If you have an example of misrepresentation or dishonesty, quote it. Otherwise, this is just more rhetorical flailing.

Now this is disinformation that should be censored and the 'expert' put in a padded cell..... http://tiny.cc/j6ft001

JD,

Do you realise that by trying to defend the government stopping what you call disinformation, you're in fact making my case. That is, at this time all the government is owning up to is trying to protect the kiddies while my contention is that this is just a feint toward the real aim which is to censor sites that say things the government prefers weren't said or force said sites to only carry approved views. By defending efforts to stop so-called disinformation, you are conceding that this is the aim. Thanks for playing.

As to the disinformation I mentioned, your defence of that is that it wasn't known to be disinformation at the time so censoring it was okey-dokey. But people did know and those who tried to get the information out were censored, cancelled, lost jobs and careers. That's why it can't be allowed to happen here again.

You might prefer to be lied to in a good cause.... I'm not of that ilk.

What I call disinformation, mhaze?

//Do you realise that by trying to defend the government stopping what you call disinformation...//

No - what independent analysts, fact-checkers, peer-reviewed researchers, and national security agencies identify as disinformation. The term doesn’t mean "ideas I don’t like." It refers to deliberately and varifiably false or misleading content, often strategically deployed to erode trust, sow division, or mislead the public.

//That is, at this time all the government is owning up to is trying to protect the kiddies...//

It’s one thing to raise concerns about slippery slopes. But you’re treating those concerns as proof that authoritarian censorship is the goal - without evidence. That turns precaution into paranoia.

//By defending efforts to stop so-called disinformation, you are conceding that this is the aim.

False again.

Arguing for safeguards against coordinated, weaponised falsehoods is not a blanket endorsement of censorship. It's called defending the conditions under which truth and dissent can both survive.

//Thanks for playing.//

You're welcome. I'm sorry you lost.

//As to the disinformation I mentioned, your defence of that is that it wasn't known to be disinformation at the time so censoring it was okey-dokey.//

How could you know that? As I pointed out, none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts. So your claim that "people did know" falls apart unless you can show that the “censored” version was later confirmed.

//But people did know and those who tried to get the information out were censored...//

That’s a broad and often unverified claim. Yes, some voices were wrongly stifled - but many others were rightly flagged for spreading false or dangerous information. We can acknowledge real overreach without throwing out all standards of accuracy.

//That's why it can't be allowed to happen here again.//

Agreed, if "it" means unjustified suppression. But ignoring the deliberate spread of lies isn’t the answer either. The solution isn’t "trust everything" or "ban everything" - it’s transparency, accountability, and standards.

//I'm not of that ilk.//

You say that, yet your post is defending the right to lie without consequence.

Trumpster,

During the pandemic were you not singing the praises of a Donald Cocktail, a certain cure-all for the dreaded lurgy doing the rounds at the time. Formulated by none other than the infamous Dangerous Doctor Donald himself, a DC consisted of one part diso mixed with one part bleach, available from under most good sinks! I think that was misinformation on the part of your folk hero Donald, and should have been censored! Do you Agree?

This is getting pretty funny JD.

It seems you don't even realise you've talked yourself into a corner by simultaneously saying that the government just wants to protect the kiddies yet also agreeing that they want to censor disinformation for the populace as a whole.

And then to add to the hilarity, you agree that the things I showed which were once called disinformation were indeed true, yet say that all disinformation are lies.

And then to round it all up you declare victory!! I can't tell if you are just incapable of understanding how silly this makes you look or are incapable of owning up to getting it all so wrong. Either way, pretty funny.

You need to be careful. Keep this up and we'll need to start lumping your in with morons like Paul whose last post takes his inanity to a while new level.