[ON HOLD] Combating Disinformation

[Separatist Peoples]

"Our thanks to the Wallenberg delegation."

[WayNeacTia]

"Our thanks to the Wallenberg delegation."

"Indeed...."

Wayne

[Makko Oko]

"We in the Makko Okoan Government personally prefer intelligence operations such as the BOT, and our intelligence is quite vast within the nation. Sad to see these affairs happen." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

I will address the counter-campaign ICly tomorrow

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

As promised, here is my IC response to the counter-campaign:


Ms. Schafer angrily walks into the chamber upon hearing about the counter-campaign

“NEIN NEIN NEIN! Pardon my German words, but this counter-campaign is flawed as heck! First of all, the claim that the proposal may allow governments to remove the right of religious practice for religious minorities is false! Clause 2b clearly stated that FACT will not interfere with right of religion.

Second, while I get that removing disinformation may be seen as suppressing certain people’s freedom of thought and speech, tell me which of the following is better. Is it better for a grown man to cry because his posters about God being friends with the devil were suppressed by the local authorities, or an entire nation going atheist because those posters remain unsuppressed and the population actually believes that lie? I’d say the former scenario is better.

Point is, if we believe the counter-campaign, we will let the multiverse become riddled with chaos-causing disinformation. If we don’t believe this counter-campaign, then the multiverse will be filled with truthful information, albeit at the cost of the rights of the people behind the disinformation. Overall, the counter-campaign has multiple loopholes, and it would be most beneficial for the multiverse to support a good successor to the fallen proposal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Separatist Peoples]

As promised, here is my IC response to the counter-campaign:


Ms. Schafer angrily walks into the chamber upon hearing about the counter-campaign

“NEIN NEIN NEIN! Pardon my German words, but this counter-campaign is flawed as heck! First of all, the claim that the proposal may allow governments to remove the right of religious practice for religious minorities is false! Clause 2b clearly stated that FACT will not interfere with right of religion.

Second, while I get that removing disinformation may be seen as suppressing certain people’s freedom of thought and speech, tell me which of the following is better. Is it better for a grown man to cry because his posters about God being friends with the devil were suppressed by the local authorities, or an entire nation going atheist because those posters remain unsuppressed and the population actually believes that lie? I’d say the former scenario is better.

Point is, if we believe the counter-campaign, we will let the multiverse become riddled with chaos-causing disinformation. If we don’t believe this counter-campaign, then the multiverse will be filled with truthful information, albeit at the cost of the rights of the people behind the disinformation. Overall, the counter-campaign has multiple loopholes, and it would be most beneficial for the multiverse to support a good successor to the fallen proposal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"The latter. Every single time."

[Outer Sparta]

I'm guessing the OP still wants to mislead us that their proposal is still in quorum cause they don't seem to care about their failed attempt or trying to better their flawed draft with more holes in it than Borussia Dortmund's defense.

[Makko Oko]

I'm guessing the OP still wants to mislead us that their proposal is still in quorum cause they don't seem to care about their failed attempt or trying to better their flawed draft with more holes in it than Borussia Dortmund's defense.

OOC: Some people have lives outside of NationStates. In this case, they're on vacation the entire week, so of course they haven't changed anything yet, so I wouldn't say they're misleading anybody, besides, who in the world saw this coming?

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

”First of all, the claim that the proposal may allow governments to remove the right of religious practice for religious minorities is false!

An angel appears on Ms. Schafer’s shoulder.
“But consider: many religious people of the Catholic faith believe in Transubstantiation; the miracle whereby the rite of communion transmutes the wine into the blood of Christ. Now, under this proposal, if a religion promotes or spreads a belief in Transubstantiation, have they engaged in spreading “disinformation” as defined here? Obviously they have. Say whatever else you want about Transubstantiation, it is most certainly ‘unproved!’

And next consider that the clauses here require Member Nations to criminalize spreading the word about Transubstantiation, and to punish those who do so. And perhaps then you may see with your own eyes why there is legitimate concern over the impact of this proposal on religious minorities.

I could have as easily used the belief in reincarnation, or the story of Exodus, or the mythology of Thor, in place of the miracle of Transubstantiation, and made the same point.”

Point is, if we believe the counter-campaign, we will let the multiverse become riddled with chaos-causing disinformation. If we don’t believe this counter-campaign, then the multiverse will be filled with truthful information, albeit at the cost of the rights of the people behind the disinformation.”

A Devil appears on Ms. Schafer’s other shoulder.
“Yes, of course. Take away the rights of some. They are wicked; they don’t deserve rights. History will prove that when you deprive the disfavored of their rights, the world always gets much better. For everyone! Not just me.”

[Outer Sparta]

I'm guessing the OP still wants to mislead us that their proposal is still in quorum cause they don't seem to care about their failed attempt or trying to better their flawed draft with more holes in it than Borussia Dortmund's defense.

OOC: Some people have lives outside of NationStates. In this case, they're on vacation the entire week, so of course they haven't changed anything yet, so I wouldn't say they're misleading anybody, besides, who in the world saw this coming?

They originally put [QUORUM] once it reached there but ever since it has been taken down due to a counter-campaign. Not sure if they were inactive by then, but I would still check in now and then if I were on vacation just to see what NS is up to.

[Wallenburg]

I'm guessing the OP still wants to mislead us that their proposal is still in quorum cause they don't seem to care about their failed attempt or trying to better their flawed draft with more holes in it than Borussia Dortmund's defense.

Or they just haven't gotten around to it. Jeez, there's absolutely nothing to be gained, anyway, by "misleading" people into thinking this still has a quorum. I would have thought this:

A definitely NOT spammy update

This has has garnered the sufficient amount of delegate approvals to reach quorum; however, I will not be online any during the next week because I am going on vacation. I do hope that this does well when it reaches the voting floor, and thank you to all who has helped this proposal get to where it is now.

would be sufficient enough not to bring about paranoia over a thread title.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Glad to see this not make it to vote.

[Attempted Socialism]

Can one of the proponents of this draft explain why one of the biggest sources of disinformation (Religion) is specifically excluded? Every religious claim is either known to be false or specifically designed to be both misleading and unfalsifiable. By nature, religious is always and necessarily a racket by rogues who meet fools, to borrow from Voltaire. So much of what we recognise as political disinformation today also overlaps with religious doctrine, and since every religious claim is dishonest, there is no way to distinguish between disinformation claims sourced to religion based on whether it is truly held. Since we already assume that purveyors of disinformation are malicious we have all reason in the world to predict they would simply claim that their disinformation is religious. What effect would this draft have if voted through, when every rogue would just posit their claims were religious in nature?

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

”First of all, the claim that the proposal may allow governments to remove the right of religious practice for religious minorities is false!

An angel appears on Ms. Schafer’s shoulder.
“But consider: many religious people of the Catholic faith believe in Transubstantiation; the miracle whereby the rite of communion transmutes the wine into the blood of Christ. Now, under this proposal, if a religion promotes or spreads a belief in Transubstantiation, have they engaged in spreading “disinformation” as defined here? Obviously they have. Say whatever else you want about Transubstantiation, it is most certainly ‘unproved!’

And next consider that the clauses here require Member Nations to criminalize spreading the word about Transubstantiation, and to punish those who do so. And perhaps then you may see with your own eyes why there is legitimate concern over the impact of this proposal on religious minorities.

I could have as easily used the belief in reincarnation, or the story of Exodus, or the mythology of Thor, in place of the miracle of Transubstantiation, and made the same point.”

Point is, if we believe the counter-campaign, we will let the multiverse become riddled with chaos-causing disinformation. If we don’t believe this counter-campaign, then the multiverse will be filled with truthful information, albeit at the cost of the rights of the people behind the disinformation.”

A Devil appears on Ms. Schafer’s other shoulder.
“Yes, of course. Take away the rights of some. They are wicked; they don’t deserve rights. History will prove that when you deprive the disfavored of their rights, the world always gets much better. For everyone! Not just me.”

“whispers to both angel and devil I think you both have valid points. The angel is right about how transubstantiation falls under the definition in the proposal, since the definition counts unproven statements. Thus, the subsequent legislation of the proposal also negatively combats religious beliefs. Yet regarding the rights of moral philosophers, scientists, and politicians, the devil is right about how I should stick to my thoughts on it. The multiverse is more deserving of truthful, stabilizing information as opposed to how the aforementioned groups are deserving of their freedom of speech and thought.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer

[Bistritza]

I'll TG you in relation to this.

[Euphony]

In the text this is an important lack, the FACT must to submit to authority of justice the certain evidence of misinformation.

OOC INTRODUCTION:

This is a sort of spinoff from my most recent draft (which is now scrapped), "Combating Misinformation About Autism", now focusing on fighting misinformation, or more specifically, disinformation, in general. This is a heavy WIP, and I am looking forward to some (constructive and friendly) criticism to really make this draft the best it can be. Please, share any suggestions you have, this really needs feedback.

UPDATE: I really think this draft has gone a long way from the first draft thanks to all the help I've gotten. The definitions are now clear and concise, the language professional, and the purpose clear. If all goes well, I will start campaigning on June 1 and submitting on June 5. If anyone has any spare stamps, please send me a TG so we can make this known and approved. Thank you.

FINAL UPDATE: It has been submitted!

Combating Disinformation in Society

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Orwell Society
Co-author: -none yet-

The World Assembly,

Discontent at the amount of harmful disinformation on a variety of topics that some member state's societies produce and distribute on a daily basis;

Knowing that said disinformation can be very harmful to society if believed to be true by a large part of the populace;

Determined to stop the spreading of injurious lies with the power of international law from this very Assembly.

Hereby defines for the purpose of this resolution:

1. "Disinformation," similar to misinformation, as false, unproven, and/or inaccurate information intentionally produced and distributed. In this resolution, all disinformation mentioned is that of harmful effect. The promoting of harmful disinformation can be defined as:
   
   1. a statement made by a person or group of people; that is
   2. falsely represented and stated to be a true fact;
   3. with the knowledge, from the person/people who made the statement, that the statement is factually untrue; and/or
   4. stated with a purposeful and reckless disregard for the statement's falsity; and
   5. is likely to cause harm to individuals specifically holding an arbitrary or reductive characteristic; and/or
   6. is intended to harm the reputation and/or wellbeing of any persons or nation.
2. Note that all disinformation in this resolution is harmful on a international scale, i.e. harmful to a significant portion of a member state's populace.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. The establishment of the Forthright Association for Circulating Truth (shortened to FACT) to provide each memberstate with a force actively fighting against harmful disinformation.
   
   1. FACT will monitor leading sources of suspicious, unreliable, and/or outright misleading information that is widely believed as true.
   2. FACT will not interfere in anything directly relating to or affecting one's religous beliefs.
   3. FACT will locate the sources of the disinformation and launch campaigns to combat it and provide the populace with proven, reliable facts.
   4. The disinformation handled by the FACT will be on a variety of topics, including but not limited to: physical, emotional, and mental health; history; political concepts; science and technology; and various other topics.
   5. The information distributed by the FACT must be proven fact, either by scientific, historical, or general research from proven, reliable sources.
   6. The information may be in any form each individual member state's government pleases, whether it be by book, internet article, pamphlet, advertising campaign, television program, etc., as long as it is an efficient method of spreading the information.
2. The criminalization of the deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation by a person or group of people.
   
   1. Punishment of an individual's violation of this ban will be decided upon by individual member state's government, whether it be by fines, incarceration, or community service.

Hoping that these measures may combat the spread of harmful disinformation for the betterment of all member states' societies.

• 5/21/2022, 1:45 P.M: After comments from Tinhampton, reworded 1a.
• 5/21/2022, 5:45 P.M: After suggestion from Anne of Cleves in TNP, changed committee acronym from BOT to FACT.
• 5/26/2022, 9:17 A.M: After much helpful feedback from Princess Rainbow Sparkles, definitions have been revised and added to and a co-author has been added.
• 5/27/2022, 3:23 P.M: After input from The Forest of Aeneas, revised definitions and added a subclause.
• 5/28/2022, 2:40 P.M: Reworded several clauses after a thorough proofread, fixed a few grammatical errors.
• 5/31/2022, 5:42 P.M: Fixed several typos, removed the definition and mention of propaganda.
• 6/1/2022, 11:08 A.M: Edited preambulatory clauses after complaints.

[/list]

[The Orwell Society]

I'm back from vacation now. So, some anomynous nation launched a countercampaign citing a flaw that I literally very clearly fixed with a simple and easily understandable clause? And that countercampaign, which was the literal point that this proposal was trying to stop, mislead enough delegates to bring it out of quorum just before it was about to reach the voting floor.


I am very, very angry. Who did this?

[The Orwell Society]

I am very upset. If I am not mistaken, the major point of the counter-campaign was disinformation in itself, citing the religous point of view which I very clearly fixed with a clause just so this wouldn't happen.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Any chance someone could post the counter-campaign and let us know who sent it?

[The Orwell Society]

OOC: Any chance someone could post the counter-campaign and let us know who sent it?

Wallenburg. Check the last post of page six.

[Outer Sparta]

I'm back from vacation now. So, some anomynous nation launched a countercampaign citing a flaw that I literally very clearly fixed with a simple and easily understandable clause? And that countercampaign, which was the literal point that this proposal was trying to stop, mislead enough delegates to bring it out of quorum just before it was about to reach the voting floor.


I am very, very angry. Who did this?

Don't be angry at someone counter-campaigning. Use it to make your draft stronger and although you may not convince Wallenburg's delegation, you can at least have it be a bit more stronger.

[Makko Oko]

I'm back from vacation now. So, some anomynous nation launched a countercampaign citing a flaw that I literally very clearly fixed with a simple and easily understandable clause? And that countercampaign, which was the literal point that this proposal was trying to stop, mislead enough delegates to bring it out of quorum just before it was about to reach the voting floor.


I am very, very angry. Who did this?

OOC: Honestly, once it reached quorum, all it took was 1 nation pulling out for it to lose it and immediately get delisted. I could be wrong on that, but that's my belief. Quorum does tend to stop the countdown after all.

[The Orwell Society]

I'm back from vacation now. So, some anomynous nation launched a countercampaign citing a flaw that I literally very clearly fixed with a simple and easily understandable clause? And that countercampaign, which was the literal point that this proposal was trying to stop, mislead enough delegates to bring it out of quorum just before it was about to reach the voting floor.


I am very, very angry. Who did this?

Don't be angry at someone counter-campaigning. Use it to make your draft stronger and although you may not convince Wallenburg's delegation, you can at least have it be a bit more stronger.

Oh, I will. But the basis on which Wallenburg's countercampaign is not true. I literally added a clause giving FACT no authority whatsoever over religous matters so his argument is just wrong. Plus, the resolution he mentioned doesn't pertain to this one because the disinformation is essentially just defamation as defined below free expression and clause 2a.

[Wallenburg]

Don't be angry at someone counter-campaigning. Use it to make your draft stronger and although you may not convince Wallenburg's delegation, you can at least have it be a bit more stronger.

Oh, I will. But the basis on which Wallenburg's countercampaign is not true. I literally added a clause giving FACT no authority whatsoever over religous matters so his argument is just wrong. Plus, the resolution he mentioned doesn't pertain to this one because the disinformation is essentially just defamation as defined below free expression and clause 2a.

My countercampaign didn't even mention FACT or any of the material you've written for it. Section 2 alone was enough of an issue for me to dequeue it on that basis.

[Comfed]

To my mind, there were no errors in Wallenburg's counter-campaign. Even though FACT itself is not to interfere with religious beliefs, member-states are still required to criminalize them under section 2 based on definition of "disinformation".

(I note that Section 2 probably also warrants making this "Moral Decency - Strong".)