>

Ban engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched.
It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.
Just look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.
Carlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, "I never said that I believed the election was rigged." And that's true. 
So what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, "A lot of people are saying..."which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.
And maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, "Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying."
You might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, "Wow, he really does do that." and the seed of doubt begins to grow. >

My favorite was things like
Headline

"Trump is a Racist"

Article

A guy named Bob called Trump a racist.

This way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly  legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said >

Well that was Trump's mo. "Plenty of people are saying it" was his mantra. >

It's a fallacious no matter who is doing it. >

Depends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism. >

There's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like "many people are saying" or "some people believe."
The first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Usually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la "two people familiar with Apple's plans," and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.
Granted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow. >


There's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like "many people are saying" or "some people believe."

As you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was "some guy named Bob said ..." That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. 

it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter?  Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?

Hence why I said "it depends" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical "Bob." >


That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.

I explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same. >

No you didn't, you asked "Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.
If Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, "it depends." >

The implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, "many people are saying."
In this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious. >

It’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. 
I think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation. >

this post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation. >

Education. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.
But how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us. >

Unfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.
If anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.
I'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution. >


Unfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is? >

I do.  And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.
It's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, "All bands must have trumpet players", but if someone says "No bands have trumpet players," pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.
Edit:  At this point this person blocked me for some reason.
Pointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution. >

No one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation. >

Virtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. 
However, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories. >

The straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people. >


The straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.

I disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.

You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.

Free speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: 

Obscenity 
Fighting words 
Defamation (including libel and slander) 
Child pornography 
Perjury 
Blackmail 
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Incitement to imminent lawless action 
Plagiarism of copyrighted material >

You're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important. >

It is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them >

Terrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider "dangerous to public health." Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?
If not, then it's probably a bad idea. >

If we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help. >

It's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that "dangerous" speech can be banned. >

I don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena. >

I don't see what your point is. >

That the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. 
There’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense. >


That the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. 

I never said that.