Cross posted from Discuit

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    A lot of them are. I think one could argue the news always saying “crime go up” is an easily provable misrepresentation and if the anti fraud laws were strong enough that a city might be able to sue large companies for such a misrepresentation, it could heavily damage the propaganda value.

    Another instance: if people saying a “nobody was arrested for BLM”. Then somebody arrested during BLM should have the right to sue a big outlet like fox news if they repeat the lie.

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      That’s still not directly anti-propaganda laws. I’m very much in favor of holding media that lies accountable, beyond just civil law.

      I’m talking about propaganda as a whole, which very much includes things that aren’t lies. For example, during the 2024 US election, I was bombarded with ads that used anecdotal evidence and indirect language to create a subtextual message of immigrants=criminals. The best counter to this imo, and propaganda as a whole, is education because proper education in critical thinking (which even the best US schools seem to avoid, wonder why…) would let people have the tools to know that you can’t create a conclusion that big from anecdotes.

      Strong anti-fraud laws encompass far more than propaganda and are a low hanging fruit of creating a just society, which is why I’m focusing on anti-propaganda specifically and how someone would avoid creating a perfect tool for abuse by a bad actor. I’m not doing this to be facetious or anything, I want to know if anyone has already come up with an approach to this problem