31–40 of 126 posts
WashPo has a more detailed article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/04/technolog... Correction as of 12:57 pm EST: Based on a comment below, I see now that the link above is talking about a different bill from Senator Klobuchar with an anti-trust focus. She's been busy.
Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment > The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise…
SCOTUS also ruled that black people are not people[0], so their opinion on to whom and to what freedom applies is irrelevant. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Good. It is bizarre to me that one could post literal death threats online endlessly without fear of any consquences, yet if you were to yell the same threats in a public location, the police would be summoned. My main concern would be that any regulations that punish companies for allowing threatening material on their site punish in proportion to the audience who was exposed to it. Big fines for big tech, tiny fine…
>Called the SAFE TECH Act, the bill would mark the latest effort to make social media companies like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Twitter Inc and Facebook Inc more accountable for “enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms,” Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar said in a statement. Ehh. Slippery slope theory, if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't…
https://www.google.com/search?q=bars+held+responsible+for+dr...
https://www.google.com/search?q=dram+shop+laws
"A commercial establishment may be held legally responsible for over-serving a visibly intoxicated person, or for serving alcohol to a minor, when that individual causes death or injury after leaving the establishment and causing: A motor vehicle accident, A pedestrian accident, Assault or other physical altercations, Other events leading to someone else's injury or death"
>Called the SAFE TECH Act, the bill would mark the latest effort to make social media companies like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Twitter Inc and Facebook Inc more accountable for “enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms,” Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar said in a statement. Ehh. Slippery slope theory, if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't…
> if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't use social media It is nearly impossible to engage in modern democracy without engaging in social media. I'm not saying this isn't a slippery slope, but when the only way to participate in our economy and government is online... well, there's a general public good element that needs to be considered by society. I'm not a big fan of government regulation, but…
I think you're using too broad a definition of "nearly."
Aside from HN, and the occasional write-only rant on Twitter, I do not use social media. And have never used it in any way to keep in touch with my government.
And I'm not alone. There are millions of people in the United States and hundreds of millions of people around the world who do not use social media.
Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment > The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise…
SCOTUS also ruled that black people are not people[0], so their opinion on to whom and to what freedom applies is irrelevant. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
>Called the SAFE TECH Act, the bill would mark the latest effort to make social media companies like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Twitter Inc and Facebook Inc more accountable for “enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms,” Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar said in a statement. Ehh. Slippery slope theory, if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't…
This specific argument is weak, _and_ the form of the argument is weak. I suggest you look for better argumentation.
Your argument suggests that not 'using' social media frees a person from all of the effects of social media. That is oversimplified and untrue. It does not address the connectedness of people and culture, for one.
I'll use two examples to explain.
1. Your argument takes the same form as the following argument: "if you don't want to be run over by a drunk driver, don't drive". Tell that to a pedestrian who was killed by a drunk driver.
2. Social Media is not like Vegas. What you say on Social Media does not stay on Social Media. It has lots of spillover effects.
>The bill would make it clear that Section 230, [...] does not apply to ads or other paid content seems reasonable >does not impair the enforcement of civil rights laws what types of civil rights abuses were protected by section 230? I'm under the impression that saying/posting racial slurs isn't illegal. > and does not bar wrongful-death actions. what's the current bar for suing an establishment for wrongful death?…
Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment > The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise…
SCOTUS also ruled that black people are not people[0], so their opinion on to whom and to what freedom applies is irrelevant. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment > The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise…
SCOTUS also ruled that black people are not people[0], so their opinion on to whom and to what freedom applies is irrelevant. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott