You still haven’t answered my questions
Right - this post was on the court’s system, so it wasn’t a random shit post online. It would be like if someone sent a letter to the court saying a juror was bribed, the court would have an ethical duty to disclose that (even if there are 10,000 similar shit posts online).
Why are some of you so obsessed with pretending it’s 1996 instead of 2024? Why not accept the information landscape you are actually in instead of constantly pining for some long lost West Wing fantasy land. I sort of get it as I was one of you several years ago but surely at some point you have to let go of the fantasy. It’s a weird small c conservative mindset that infects centrists.
The research on misinformation is crystal clear. There is zero benefit, and in fact significant harm, in debunking bad information.
Why couldn’t the court conduct a private investigation of the post to see if there was any credibility? Instead the judge pretended it was 1996, and that the case wasn’t about the worst liar in US history, and went with the “norm” even though it should have been patently obvious it would only hurt the cases credibility and it would be utterly, completely, and totally meaningless when it later turned out to be a nothing burger.
One of the main reasons the US may fall to fascism will the the lefts refusal to learn from the readily available and voluminous political science on historical examples.
3 Likes
I, for one, can’t believe Clovis is overreacting to something
8 Likes
This is going to be a pretty funny post next year when Trump is president again.
Thisisfine.gif
Don’t think that a shitposter trolling a facebook page is going to have anything to do with Trump being president again (which he definitely is going to be).
3 Likes
It’s death by a thousand cuts in a disinformation landscape. That’s how it works.
It’s just another example of completely unnecessary self harm.
Trump may very well become President again, but it’s not going to be because a judge notified his attorney of a post on their Facebook page that indicated the jury may have been tampered with.
4 Likes
I think this is true if the goal is to change the minds of people that have already accepted misinformation. For people that have social media literacy skills and the capability to process information effectively, debunking bad information is very effective. You need to fight misinformation on many fronts - by producing good information, debunking bad information, and for the people that do not have the skills to process information you need to approach it as a psychology problem and not an information problem.
In the matter at hand, I assume the judge is not intending to change the minds of the people that have already accepted Trump’s persecution lies. It may feed the fires of the misinformation campaign, certainly.
1 Like
I agree but the research seems to suggest that you end up just spreading the bad information more widely for the reason you say.
I don’t understand what was stopping the judge from figuring out if the post was anything before creating more misinformation?
There are rules and procedures that the judge has to follow. I don’t think he’s supposed to do his own investigation here.
1 Like
Not from what I read. It sounds like a “norm”.
The judge is not a political operative and should be concerned about conducting his case properly. The “misinformation landscape” or whatever does not enter into it.
Trial courts are fundamentally finders of facts. So by having a hearing on this they are going to produce good information. It’s not the court system’s fault that people may not choose to believe it for some reason. And the fall of democracy in the US certainly cannot be pinned on a court for performing that function.
The court isn’t creating misinformation, though. It’s doing the opposite!
If only there wasn’t mountains of social science research proving the exact opposite point you would have a strong case here.
AFAIK, there is no social science research proving that courts do not, in fact, find facts. You want it to be one way, but it’s the other. A random trial court in Nee York isn’t going to change the beliefs of millions of people across the country. That’s not its job. No court in any country can do that. It’s not LOL US courts, as always, it LOL US population.
2 Likes
The rule of law means you still follow procedures no matter how bad the person is.
1 Like
Show where it’s a rule and not a norm. And the rule would have to be that any random post online must be immediately released to the public and both parties before any work is done to ascertain its veracity.