this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1338 points (98.6% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

5486 readers
1086 users here now

Rules:

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Cross posted from Discuit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 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