Free Speech
- Thread starter A2K78
- 1,178 comments
- 81,468 views
sigh
I don't care if it's going to continue to exist or not, but if they WANT to continue to exist, they must agree to certain conditions. To me the choice should be:
1. Social media exists with certain regulations
2. Social media does not exist
Currently we live in a 3rd option where they exist without harm reduction regulation. This is the least desirable option to me.
- 13,902
- Adelaide
- Neomone
And even with that in mind, it's really hard to see how the airline industry is essential. It's convenient, there isn't much that airlines do that can't be accomplished in other ways. Shipping or travelling by sea is slower, but it's very rare that you actually need to be in another country tomorrow. You just want to, because it's more convenient than spending a couple of weeks on a boat.
Airlines are a convenience. There are other perfectly functional ways to achieve what you can with an airline. By basically any definition, you don't need airlines.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,713
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Yet you've just advoked for a private firm to be forced to do so
No I can't. Should a private business not have the right to police what people say and do on it's property?
I get a strong feeling that you don't understand how free-speech works.
No, being at home is not like being offline at all.
Last edited:
- 20,976
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
- 13,902
- Adelaide
- Neomone
No, it's just that what you consider "essential" seems to be both arbitrary and not at all essential in any sense of the word.
Whatever you want to call this group of related things that you keep wanting to refer to, you should probably pick another word because "essential" is the one thing they are not. Language has meaning - you can't just decide that "essential" means something completely different to what normal people use it for.
You can make arguments for regulations and such, but if your reasoning is based on the fact that they're "essential" it's obviously going to fall over. They're not essential. Either explain what you mean better or at least choose a word that is more accurate for what you actually mean.
Try this - explain your reasoning without using the word "essential". If your argument is well founded, it shouldn't be difficult.
This gets into too big to fail territory. Are these things actually essential, or are we just uncomfortable with the amount of discomfort, damage and other negative consequences from letting things play out?
If any major industry fails suddenly there's going to be fallout. That doesn't mean that all major industries are essential, it just means that large groups of people are poor at reacting quickly to sudden change.
I'm losing track of what's already been said (or not said), but I explained in the post you quoted that any industry large enough needs to be regulated to reduce potential harm to the public. That's not complicated and I don't know why you're all arguing against having a judge in charge of removing/censoring someone.
Among the many glaringly obvious dangers, social media has the biggest influence on public perception/opinion today. We cannot allow private companies (or even the government) to be a ministry of truth through censorship or algorithms that suppress/boost certain opinions or people.
Oh and yes, I would extend this TV and radio. News should be completely non-profit. If the private companies utilizing the airwaves granted kindly by the public, the news should absoultely be free, non-profit with 0 advertisement or marketing present. Ratings and profit don't mix with news. If they want to make money, they can have different channels to recoup the cost and/or profit.
edit
Coincidentally, John Oliver's show started his main story with this:
Calling electricity a "basic human necessity". Who was it here who argued it wasn't the other day and pretended my opinion is on the fringes?
Last edited:
- 87,436
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
According to Texas HB20, overturned by the US District Court and then reinstated on Thursday by the US Court of Appeals, Twitch broke State law by removing the live-stream of a spree shooting as streamed by the shooter himself as he killed ten people in Buffalo New York over the weekend.
- 87,436
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 87,436
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 3,909
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
Aaaand another instance of DeSantis attacking the 1st Amendment.
apnews.com
What gets me is how the law is aimed at punishing people that "intentionally disturb" people in their home. Firstly, the whole point of protest is to cause some form of disturbance, it's pretty much impossible for the latter not to come with the former. Secondly, in typical DeSantis fashion, it sounds vague as hell. It sounds like if you're protesting and within earshot of someone's house, they can call the cops on you and you can potentially get arrested.
Ban on protests in front of homes signed by Gov. DeSantis
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Anyone who protests in front of a private residence in Florida can face jail time and fines under a bill Republican Gov.
apnews.com
What gets me is how the law is aimed at punishing people that "intentionally disturb" people in their home. Firstly, the whole point of protest is to cause some form of disturbance, it's pretty much impossible for the latter not to come with the former. Secondly, in typical DeSantis fashion, it sounds vague as hell. It sounds like if you're protesting and within earshot of someone's house, they can call the cops on you and you can potentially get arrested.
Not him, although by his logic most societies (the younger generation) are expecting to have a phone with social media so it is essential. He can speak for himself if he wishes anyway.
The jist I'm getting here is that for a service to be considered a utility/essential, it has to be be something one cannot live without, or as famine pointed out, is expected by society. It's not a strawman or a stretch to point out the former and apply it to electricity.
Oh no! The poor corporation has to defend itself in court? Why even have laws anyway? Let's do without them to save everyone the hassle. Not like there's such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit anyway.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,586
- Texas
They saw how pissed off people got about possibly overturning Roe v Wade, so he's signing this into law for when he & his cronies want to pass controversial things and limit the ways people can respond to them.Aaaand another instance of DeSantis attacking the 1st Amendment.
Ban on protests in front of homes signed by Gov. DeSantis
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Anyone who protests in front of a private residence in Florida can face jail time and fines under a bill Republican Gov.
What gets me is how the law is aimed at punishing people that "intentionally disturb" people in their home. Firstly, the whole point of protest is to cause some form of disturbance, it's pretty much impossible for the latter not to come with the former. Secondly, in typical DeSantis fashion, it sounds vague as hell. It sounds like if you're protesting and within earshot of someone's house, they can call the cops on you and you can potentially get arrested.
"We're banning condoms, math books, and Disney, and you'll only be able to protest in places we'll never see you to care".
- 13,902
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Firstly, it's a big statement to be making that every single industry above a certain size needs to be regulated in order to reduce potential harm to the public.
But let's assume that's true. Even if "Every large industry needs to be regulated in order to reduce potential harm to the public" is true that's not remotely the same as "Every large industry is essential". That's just not how words work.
Secondly, it's not trivially true that every large industry needs to be regulated. You might be able to prove or demonstrate that, but you'd have to actually make that argument rather than just expecting everyone to accept it.
There's very often benefit to regulating truly essential things for the good of the wider community, as something that is essential has an immediate and obvious harm related to it's lack. But that doesn't mean that any industry that would benefit from regulation is essential. This is the logical fallacy you're committing, and you don't seem to get it.
You can make arguments that airlines, social media or whatever should be regulated more or less based on harms or benefits. Those arguments can then be assessed and discussed, and people will have differing perspectives on what constitutes acceptable harm in exchange for certain benefits. It will probably even differ depending on what specific industry you're talking about. This is where people are trying to get you to - start talking about the specific advantages of regulation that you see in terms of specific benefits and harms.
What you can't do is handwave the whole thing because "large industries are essential", because that's not true. And because it's not true, it doesn't help anyone understand your argument. Even if it's interpreted as "large industries should be regulated", you haven't provided any argument as to why that should be assumed to be true.
Because it's far more complicated than you seem to understand. And because the idea of having anyone in charge of censorship in general seems like a bad idea. It's one thing to have certain companies make use of their product contingent on agreeing to abide by their moderation. It's another thing entirely to hand total control of moderation over to the government.
There are countries that have the sort of total governmental media control that you're advocating for, but they're not generally the nicest places. Countries that have strong democracies and freedoms are generally not fearful of letting their citizens say whatever they like, with a small number of very limited and specific restrictions that exist for pretty well defined reasons.
I'm sorry to bring this up, but it's hard not to wonder how much your view on this is influenced by where you live. Bahrain is not known for it's journalistic freedom.
We can be pedantic about words all day long honestly, it's not something I'm too interested in as long as we understand what we're trying to say.
An industry "large enough" will always be integrated with our lives and the economy in such a way that without them, massive adjustments will need to be taken. Adjustments that can collapse entire countries. That's what makes them "essential". I don't like banks nor do I think they should exist the way they do, but at the moment they are indeed "too big" to fail. That makes them essential.
I tried and have done so. I equated my data to medical records. Without the user/patient they don't exist, regardless of what technology was used to generate them or where they're stored. I also explained to you why I don't think they should be able to censor anyone. They have too much of an influence on society and that makes them defacto ministries of truth. The only arguments I've gotten against that are "hurr durr current laws don't apply" and "muh capitalism". Scaff at least tried and equated social media to a private property. It's not. They're leasing their digital "property" to the public as a digital town square. That's how they got to where they are, and at this point it's completely irrelevant anyway. They need to accept harm reduction regulations or cease to exist.
Lol. I'm doing the opposite. I'm putting someone in charge of making sure there's no censorship. Anything that can be said or done on a public sidewalk, should be not be censored or be grounds for account closing by big social media. How is this complicated?
None of it is influenced by Bahrain at all, nor is it related. It's a little bit bigoted to assume that, but I understand so it's ok. My opinions are pretty much the opposite of the mainstream and our constitution in some cases. For example, abortion is also completely illegal* here, and there I was saying it ought to be in the first 6 months with no questions asked
With regard to journalistic freedom, I would've agreed with you that it's a joke in here, but after the Russian invasion and RT being taken off from the west citing the exact same reason Bahrain censors journalists, I have to say it's rich. Bahrain is so far from my utopia it could be on a different galaxy, but if you're interested in discussing Arab governments vs western governments, you may create another thread. Or if this board has a discord server, we can have these discussions verbally. I think it's easier that way.
*before anyone tries to be clever and asks, my mother did not have it in Bahrain.
Similar threads
- Poll
