Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

Posting a link rather than quoting the relevant parts make me think that's all you did, once I called you on it. Should you be held to the same high standard?:

> take on the best existing scholarship on the subject and give references to support their arguments

You essentially put the burden on me to figure out how this document supports your argument - that the majority of white lynching (in some unspecified time period) where racially motivated.

I've also found quite a few that argue white lynching were motivated by support for progressive racial causes, but yet to find concrete statistics/evidence supporting that conclusion either.

We definitely have too many candidates. In practice, other filters, rightly or wrongly, cull the herd to only "serious candidates". Basically, ability to raise money and get endorsements. If you squint, they both kinda look like forms of social proof.

The political parties used to be the filter, but now they're impotent. For better or worse.

--

> I don't think I warrant that status.

Maybe not. But name some "journalists" in corporate media who have your credibility and authenticity.

By my definition, you are far more of a journalist than most talking heads and pundits can even claim to be. (Whereas anonymous coward me is not.)

A "professional journalist" also has the resources to do fact checking and corrections (errata).

Most of the news and analysis I consume today comes from podcasts, bloggers, and books.

That's not great.

Using Manufacturing Consent's thesis of media filters, because I don't have another model, it comes down to who is "in charge". Right now, our society's choices for mass news are corporate propaganda and corporate recommenders (algorithmic hate machines). Some people can afford to buy high quality bespoke news. Some are quirky or crazy enough (news junkies) to keep their own ledger (bozo list).

There are some exceptions. HN, metafilter, user groups (aka special interest groups) like some subreddits and ravelry.org, can also provide higher signal to noise over a longer time frame.

--

Thanks for humoring me and reading this far. I write to understand and it helps me to go thru the effort.

>So the government should pass laws that tell private companies what they can’t talk about.

Yes, they should not allow private companies to spew and enforce systems of prejudices.

> But the government should also pass laws that force companies to publish every other opinion?

Yes, that's the free speech part, you know.

> Isn’t that the government now controlling free speech?

Not even close.

> Isn’t the government in fact pushing a narrative when they don’t allow companies to focus on sexual an racial harassment?

Except it only happens when it doesn't actually happen, and you look through a lens of prejudices, like the law attempted to prohibit. We have a justice system for when it actually does happen, though.

> Should companies not train interviewers that you shouldn’t discriminate based on someone’s accent or where they went to school?

And that is exactly what the law would prevent; "teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others".

It does not ban nor prevent the use of the word "gay." Asserting so is pushing information that is false, hence misinformation.