Yes, this is definitely getting funny, mhaze.

//...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.//

That’s not contradictory. Governments can pursue multiple goals - e.g. protecting children and safeguarding the public from coordinated foreign disinformation. Both can be true, and neither proves intent to suppress political dissent. You’re inventing a conflict where there is none.

//You agree that the things I showed which were once called disinformation were indeed true...//

No, I don’t. In fact, I went through each example and showed why they’re still misleading or unproven, even if parts have gained nuance over time.

"...none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372446

Selective memory doesn’t make your argument stronger.

//...yet say that all disinformation are lies.//

Again, no.

I said disinformation refers to deliberate and verifiably false content, often spread with strategic intent. That’s distinct from speculation, mistakes, or evolving hypotheses. You’re collapsing all categories into one to score a rhetorical point.

//...you declare victory!!//

Indeed I do.

I've addressed every point you've raised with actual reasoning - and that your only rebuttal now is to mock, misrepresent, and compare me to others. That tends to happen when the argument runs out of fuel.

I just thought, mhaze - why don't we ask our little right-wing friend how "funny" this is?

Question:
"In the attached debate, is mhaze correct in saying that John Daysh has talked himself into with a contradiction?"

Grok:
No, mhaze is not correct in claiming that John Daysh has talked himself into a contradiction. Mhaze asserts that Daysh simultaneously claims the government only wants to protect children while also agreeing that the government aims to censor disinformation for the broader populace, presenting these as contradictory. However, Daysh’s position, as articulated in his posts, is consistent: he argues that the government can pursue multiple objectives, such as protecting children and addressing disinformation, without these goals being mutually exclusive or indicative of a hidden censorship agenda.

In his response on October 6, 2025, at 9:01:28 AM, Daysh explicitly states, “That’s not contradictory. Governments can pursue multiple goals - e.g. protecting children and safeguarding the public from coordinated foreign disinformation. Both can be true, and neither proves intent to suppress political dissent.” This directly counters mhaze’s claim by clarifying that these objectives coexist logically. Daysh maintains that addressing disinformation is about managing deliberate falsehoods, not silencing dissent, and he consistently challenges mhaze’s narrative of a covert censorship plot by demanding evidence and pointing to the lack of precedent for such conspiracies in liberal democracies.

Mhaze’s accusation of a contradiction relies on misrepresenting Daysh’s position as endorsing broad censorship while ignoring Daysh’s nuanced stance: that addressing disinformation involves transparency and accountability, not authoritarian suppression. Thus, there is no contradiction in Daysh’s argument, as he consistently defends targeted measures against disinformation while rejecting mhaze’s broader conspiracy claims.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_7583b9e9-2eda-4680-833e-e60f29ab40ba
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1rMbNEh7V5iZS1pGtV41PDWfKEXuPuhbB/view?usp=sharing

Not so funny anymore, is it?

I noticed there was a typo in my question there, so I asked it again in a new chat in case it's blamed for the result - as inconsequential as it was.

The result was the same, but Grok added the following this time around:

Additionally, mhaze’s claim that Daysh agrees the examples of disinformation (e.g., COVID origins, J6 FBI presence) were “indeed true” is inaccurate. Daysh explicitly refutes this, stating: “none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts” (John Daysh, 5 October 2025). He provides nuanced responses to each example, distinguishing between unproven claims, oversimplifications, and deliberate falsehoods, thus undermining mhaze’s attempt to frame him as conceding their truth.

In summary, Daysh’s arguments are consistent: he acknowledges the government’s stated aims (child protection, combating disinformation) while questioning mhaze’s leap to a censorship conspiracy without concrete evidence. There’s no contradiction in holding that a government can pursue multiple policy goals, even if some are imperfectly executed. Mhaze’s accusation appears to misrepresent Daysh’s position to create the illusion of a contradiction where none exists.
_____

Looks like you'll need to find new tactics, mhaze. Technology's caught up with the ones you've been using for decades now.

Try... oh, I don't know - being honest?

"inanity to a while new level" Earth calling Space Cadet, sorry Space Cadet, not reading you, copy! Earth to Space Cadet Trumpster, come in Space Cadet. Are you out there somewhere, are you still in orbit beyond the Milky Way? Copy.

""...none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts.""

And none are now considered to be disinformation. That's the point.

They were once called disinformation and efforts, strenuous efforts were made to suppress them, but now they're no longer disinformation. But you continue to think that suppressing what today is considered in your terms "lies" is somehow valid.

That's the problem with suppressing things you don't like based on claims that turn out to be wrong. It one of those things I'd have thought you'd have learned in the last 50 odd years, but alas....

The hilarity continues as JD goes running off to Grok, feeding it filtered data and then asking it to comment on filtered data. Apart from anything else, it shows that JD hasn't the foggiest how AI works.

No, that’s your claim, mhaze.

//And none are now considered to be disinformation.//

And it still doesn’t hold. Let’s recall what I actually said:

"As I pointed out, none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372446

That wasn’t some vague jab. I listed and analysed each one. You still haven’t addressed that. You're just repeating your conclusion, not defending it.

//They were once called disinformation and efforts, strenuous efforts were made to suppress them, but now they're no longer disinformation.//

Name one from your list that was officially reclassified this way - not in the sense that a few people online claimed it, but that credible institutions reversed their consensus. You won’t, because most of those points remain unproven, misleading, or only partially true.

Rehashing them without evidence isn’t an argument, it’s nostalgia for being "ahead of your time."

//But you continue to think that suppressing what today is considered in your terms "lies" is somehow valid.//

No again.

I said that deliberate, coordinated, strategic disinformation (especially from hostile actors or bots) deserves intervention. That’s different from censoring unpopular opinions or emerging hypotheses.

I also said:

"We can acknowledge real overreach without throwing out all standards of accuracy."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372446

You keep collapsing those categories so you can pretend all moderation = censorship. That’s the actual misinformation here.

//That's the problem with suppressing things you don't like...//

Yes, which is why I would never condone it. It's also the problem with inventing grievances based on distorted history and calling it evidence.

//The hilarity continues as JD goes running off to Grok...//

So now you’re mocking external review? Maybe you don’t want transparency after all?

The AI disagreed with your interpretation, so you blamed the referee. A powerful engine, worth billions of dollars, that can:

- handle multimodal understanding and generation
- handle long-context reasoning
- code/generate/debug software with astonishing accuracy
- process complex mathematical reasoning, symbolic logic, and proofs
- accurately summarise, explain, and distill knowledge

But somehow, they keep getting it wrong when it comes to assessing your slanderous and knowingly false claims.

Right.