• zeca@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      who is talking about thought crime? spreading fake news can be dangerous in a way that results in actual deaths.

            • zeca@lemmy.eco.br
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 days ago

              When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.

              The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.

              Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.

        • minnow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.

            • minnow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.

              I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.

              • your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not.

                My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.

                Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.

                Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less. And u taking offence is your choice and yoyr problem.

                I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.

                I wasnt aware that anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid, thanks for enlightening me. Seems kinda self centred to me but i would be stupid to disagree with on that point.

                • minnow@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.

                  Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.

                  But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.

                  Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less

                  Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.

                  anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid

                  That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.

    • deathbird@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      For all the crap on X, the Community Notes I’ve seen have been actually kinda good. Not that I’ve seen a lot, because algorithmically sorted public microblogging is still discursive cancer with ideological hepatitis that I mostly try to avoid.