Live data from Hacker News

Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

tvpworld.com

61–70 of 225 posts

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#61
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expectation was that because they knew the vaccines reduce the chances of getting symptoms such as coughs associated with transmission, reduced the time people were sick for, and also reduce the viral load in people who got sick, that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus. It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact but they thought i…

>that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus Shouldn't they have at least tried to study this if that was the expectation?

They did, studies started almost immediately. It just took more time for the results to come out because transmission trials are much more fiddly and time consuming to do.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that if you already have a dictatorship, or something approaching it, "disinformation" means, in the eyes of the law as it is applied, information counter to the ruling party's interest. I agree that disinformation, real disinformation, is being used as a tool to spread authoritarianism and we need better means to combat it. This law, I am afraid, is double speak. It purports to oppose disinformation b…

Everything is in the eyes of the law. Porn is in the eyes of the law too. As is violent speech and terrorism. We steer clear of laws that are dubious and ambiguous because they can be leveraged whimsically or loopholed. But ignoring threats to full democracy (disinformation) is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous.

Full democracy needs allowing people to think for themselves and spread their ideas freely to whoever will listen. Full democracy is not compatible with telling people what to think.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#63
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expectation was that because they knew the vaccines reduce the chances of getting symptoms such as coughs associated with transmission, reduced the time people were sick for, and also reduce the viral load in people who got sick, that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus. It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact but they thought i…

> It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact... I wonder if they wonder if substantially (the memeplex is...complex) describing it otherwise was to their advantage, in retrospect.

Who's "they"? It was to our advantage because it saved a lot of lives, and it was to the advantage of the public health services promoting the policy because it reduced demand on health services (and saved lives).

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#64
post #45
post #38

I see a lot of people critical of Turkey... and I agree. But the US is not too far away. See AB-2098 in California just signed by governor / likely presidential nominee Gavin Newson [1] which basically gives the state the ability to revoke medical licenses for spreading "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific contrary to the standard of care" (in other words, go against the CDC or other sta…

Yeah, this is especially an issue as certain forms of medical care gets politicized. If a doctor is obviously telling people that cigarettes are healthy and alcohol abuse if the key to a long life then of course they probably should have their license revoked. If a doctor isn't certain of the literature or has moral objections to prescribing hormones to trans teenagers, well that one is up for debate. Similarly see A…

The whole situation with Alex Jones has undermined the confidence I have with our court system and our government. Initially I thought there was some Mandela Effect going on because I could have sworn I remembered Alex Jones losing a Sandy Hook civil suit case multiple times before. Turns out, he’s being sued multiple times by different sets of parents and from what I understand, this latest case isn’t the last one.

Regardless of how justified this feels, I nevertheless worry that using the civil court system in this manner sets a dangerous precedent.

Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Indeed, it really looks like these parents/their attorneys are out to destroy Alex Jones through lawsuit after lawsuit.

Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. Yes, I know he is not worth that much and will ultimately end up paying far less. But the mere idea that such a large fine was issued undermines confidence that the restitution is in any way reasonable. Not just because the number is so detached from reality, but because such sums look like the financial equivalent of the death penalty.

I am very worried about how civil suits can be used to go after people. To me at least, there need to be additional protections along the lines of what we have in the Eighth Amendment. What I’m seeing with these Sandy Hook cases feels like cruel and unusual punishment. Also keep in mind that you do not have a right to an attorney in suits like these and you have to pay out of pocket.

It is not unreasonable to think lawfare like this will be used against other people in the future.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#65
post #47

Think about the power you want the government to have. And then imagine what your political opponents will do with it the next time they win the election.

Your point doesn't work they way you seem to think it does. Any power you enable/disable can also be enabled/disabled in the future.

Let's say you want to enshrine the rights to free speech so you put it into the constitution. Any future government can just take it out, just completely ignore its existence, say it doesn't apply in this situation, or work around it but requiring some civil agreement.

---

To put things more concretely with a different example. US Democrats never modified the filibuster to allow supreme court judges to be confirmed by 50/50+1 votes. One may think that they didn't want their political opponents to have this power (IIRC they enabled it for non-supreme court judges so this seems like a valid argument to make). However, if that was the case then it was pointless as their political opponents enabled that power.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#66
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expectation was that because they knew the vaccines reduce the chances of getting symptoms such as coughs associated with transmission, reduced the time people were sick for, and also reduce the viral load in people who got sick, that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus. It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact but they thought i…

I don’t dispute that either - it make sense. However, does it not scare you… that it is a fact now, but was not a fact back then, despite being widely preached as a fact back then, and nobody was permitted to counter this “fact” back then and admit it was not so? That’s the uncomfortable part.

No it doesn't scare me, they did the right thing and they had I think very strong reasons for doing so. They knew that the policy was safe because the risks of the vaccines evaluated in trials were very low, and they had many very good reasons based on experience from other infectious diseases as to what the outcome would be.

They were in a situation where thousands, at times tens of thousands of people were dying every day. If you know a policy is very safe (not perfectly safe, not completely risk free, but known to be very low risk), and you know that the highly likely benefits are very high and are expected to save many many thousands of lives, why should I be scared of them implementing it? Genuinely, I just don't understand that attitude at all. It makes no sense to me. You look at the evidence and the risks and you make a decision. In this case I think it was a very easy one and huge numbers of people all over the world are alive now because of it.

Meanwhile a lot of people are dead because they believed partial, misrepresented or incorrect information about the vaccines. Doesn't it scare you that people were spreading so much disinformation that was responsible for so many deaths? That excessive skepticism and distrust, based on simple lack of careful evaluation of widely available facts, was so incredibly destructive?

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#68

Hold on.. not false statements, not defamation, not calls for violence… but “disinformation.” Except that we find out that many things were disinformation every day. My family is increasingly paranoid after the Pfizer executive said they never tested whether their vaccine prevented transmission to the EU a few days ago. Apparently that is not new information technically speaking, but it is so counter-narrative it bog…

From what I hear you certainly risk prosecution in Turkey if you simply say that you think Turkish economic policy is bad.

Or just like or retweet a tweet that says Turkish economic policy is bad.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#70
post #38

I see a lot of people critical of Turkey... and I agree. But the US is not too far away. See AB-2098 in California just signed by governor / likely presidential nominee Gavin Newson [1] which basically gives the state the ability to revoke medical licenses for spreading "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific contrary to the standard of care" (in other words, go against the CDC or other sta…

The question is how we can keep our own countries from going down similar routes? With tech being what it is, it will become harder and harder to resist the state over time, so we will need better and better ways of keeping our houses in order so that things will not “decay,” to use a slightly classical term

With ai and surveillance / mass-manipulation tech, it will be extremely hard to come back from authoritarianism soon.

Post reply on HN