381–390 of 434 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech Wasn't that the idea of Public Access Television?
Try airing a show called Happy Nazi Fun Time on public access. See how that works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies. What rules are those? Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?
The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise…
Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GP specified elected official, not candidate.
So all that would have been OK if he were elected?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GP specified elected official, not candidate.
How will candidates become elected officials without access to the platforms their electorate are on? I don't support Paul Nehlen, I just don't think it's that cut and dry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a catch: the people doing most of the lying are the same that have worked for decades to destroy public education.
Is it true that public education is being destroyed? I'm having trouble finding metrics by which it has declined. In terms of budget, 4.1% of US GDP is government expenditure on education. For comparison: Japan is 2.9%, Canada 4.3%, UK 4.3%. This number hasn't changed much. Over the past 20 years it has fluctuated between 4.1% and 4.7% of GDP.[1] There might be a slight downward trend, but if there is it has followed…
I teach in college. I was born early sixties. My daughter teaches math in high school. Recently I showed her my math books from my old high school. Her response: No way that my students could follow this.
Where I teach we have to give extra classes in basic math (I'm in STEM).
We're definitely sliding. Reading seems to be sliding worse even.
By the way, I don't think there is much of a correlation between how much a country spends on education and the quality of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you in spirit, but the Fairness Doctrine in the United States was a variation of this, where the FCC required that approximately equal time and attention be paid to all sides of a major issue. Ronald Reagan removed this in the 80s, and helped popularize conservative talk radio. The justification was that the limited bandwidth of television made it in the public interest to regulate its influence. The int…
The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the airwaves were a public resource and that anyone using that resource was required to use it responsibly and in the interest of the public.
Broadcast spectrum is a limited resource. Said resource is owned by the public but since it is limited, you need a license to make use of it. In order to retain a license, you need to operate for the public's interest, convenience, and necessity.
It's also the basic reasoning behind such things as content restrictions and the system by which you can complain about something that is broadcast. If enough people complain about something you broadcast, it can be argued that you are not serving the public's interest and so be fined or lose your license to broadcast.
It's why cable programming is more restricted by a network's desire to avoid pushback from advertisers or cable carriers due to complaints (rather than anything under the jurisdiction of the FCC). They aren't required to serve the public interest in the same way, but market forces apply some of the same pressures.
In this case, I see social media platforms as being more like cable networks than broadcast networks. You won't see specific government content restrictions on most (legal) content hosted on these services because they don't require a license. However, they still face backlash if they piss off enough customers and/or advertisers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try airing a show called Happy Nazi Fun Time on public access. See how that works.
Heil Honey I'm Home! did make it all the way to broadcasting one episode. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heil_Honey_I%27m_Home%21
I could totally imagine a Monty Python sketch depicting Hitler in an absurd/comedic situation being rebroadcast on US public TV without issue. I think the previous comment was referring to a hypothetical pro-Nazi program.
So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.
"Facebook employees should take some measure of pride in that, he said: "I would urge people not to look at the moral impact of what we do just through the lens of harm and mitigation. That's clearly a huge part of what we have to do - I'm not downplaying that. ... But it's also about the upside, and the good, and giving people a voice who wouldn't have previously been able to get into the news and talk about stuff.…
It’s a scary thing to get labeled as a racist because you defend free speech. I think it illustrates why we should shy away from censorship as much as possible.
People here saying that social media companies should be considered a utility once they reach a certain size are very on point.
I have zero doubts that the anti-racists would happily advocate for Trump to be cut off from electricity/internet/sewage/water.
In some way I agree with them but in another there are healthy methods of activism and unhealthy methods of activism. We shouldn’t be encouraging companies with billions of users to weaponize the unhealthy forms.
I am interested to see how many people who want Trump’s post labeled have read about the history of censorship in Europe and China.
Christianity used censorship a long time ago and what were the primary principles they believed in? Do onto others as you would do onto yourself, love other people, don’t do drugs or commit adultery. Then when you look into the cracks you can see the crusades they went on and all the horrible things that occurred from it.
I hope that isn’t the world we recreate.
So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.
There are lots of options between full on censoring and not doing a thing. Displaying that certain prominent posts aren’t accurate is a good start, much like what Twitter did.