2
I'm guessing they're worried about social media companies controlling the narrative. Deleting comments to make a politician sound better or worse, that sort of thing.
or straight up misinformation and hate speech. Calls for insurrection. that sort of thing.
because that would never happen... right....? I mean the US is civilized and never had violence used to try and prevent the lawful and constitutional turn over of power... right...?
That's not a reason to start controlling speech. It's an effective knee jerk emotional reaction that may even elicit the immediate desired outcome but that newfound power will absolutely be used by the next guy. You want Donald Trump's team having that kind of control over speech?
Everything you give to the guy you like will be wielded by the guy you don't like. Don't be stupid.
Don’t be stupid
You first.
Inciting insurrection, inciting to riot, and treason are all very much illegal. And pretty much always have been.
I will back the right of any American to say their piece to the hilt, and generally, you’re right. This however is not “suppression”…. And a lot of these posts aren’t necessarily Americans. Would you prefer else invade Russia, to make it stop?
In the same vein, selling snake oil is also very much illegal. It’s called fraud. Many of the people your defending are very much modern snake oil salesmen. I would also very much like to see jail time to the people that sold my cousin some shit promising it would protect her son from Covid. The kid is alive. But he got long Covid anyway, and when she responded by giving the kid more snake oil… he went blind.
Your ideals are awesome. But they come with a cost you are choosing to ignore. Many of these individuals are choosing to knowlingly spread lies (including trump himself,) for their own personal gain. Free speech, doesn’t mean no consequences.
The first amendment doesn’t protect you from getting shitcanned from social media because you shilled some snake oil or are openly advocating insurrection (or spouting election lies.)
Your ideals are awesome. But they come with a cost you are choosing to ignore. Many of these individuals are choosing to knowlingly spread lies (including trump himself,) for their own personal gain. Free speech, doesn’t mean no consequences.
And I acknowledge that. I don't have the right to tell someone they can't, shouldn't, or don't have the right to lie. It's up to the people to whom are being lied to distinguish lies from truth.
It doesn't mean no consequences for those lies, but those consequences can not be that there is an acceptable speech. If we allow that then we give control over what that acceptable speech is to someone. And that someone right now could be the right person. But it's not always going to be that way, it will necessarily be the worst people at some point. So the only way to ensure the right speech gets listened to is to put that onus on the listener and call it out when we see it. Preventing it in general is not an option.
we should continue to do what we’ve been doing and hope Jan 6 doesn’t happen or another plague doesn’t crop up.
That’s what I just read. Because we know “calling it out” doesn’t work unless the person calling the bullshit out has a relatively close relationship to the individual.
We also know that not taking these individuals down gives them a much larger audience to reach. A much larger platform.
Also, the entire reason we have consumer protections agencies like the FDA is because generally speaking consumers can’t know on their own if something os safe or effective. Your argument here is patently foolish and absolywill kill people.
Why? To protect “rights” they don’t even actually have? Remember: social media is not actually public. They’re a private, for profit company and they maintain the right to take down any content they deem inappropriate.
It’s perfectly within the FDA’s mandate to point out content the agency deems inappropriate, and ask them to take it down.
Just as it’s within their mandate to ask Walmart to stop selling vitamin pills if it deems them to be dangerous.
I'm honestly astonished they had the audacity to even ask for this. This is nothing short of controlling speech under a guise of "we're super promising to not abuse this newfound power that will definitely exist for the rest of eternity, even when it's out of our control"
This is a short sighted and naive solution at best. And people who can't think in broad terms that will necessarily have implications for generations to come should not be making policy that has that kind of reach.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
30 readers
1 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 2 years ago