121–130 of 186 posts
"Michael is NOT a politician. He has spent his career in business, not government. We need bold, conservative outsiders to shake up business-as-usual."
https://michaelwayforaz.com/about/
The bill sure sounds contradictory to his campaign statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.
> it isn't trade-off. Yes it is. > You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech. No I'm not. ~~~~~~ There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation.
That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
Curious, what is driving this "you need permission to use the internet" bills suddenly ? Really miss the old internet.
The rise of anti-Establishment politics led the Establishment to strike back, and they play for keeps. That said I still expect mandatory age verification/ID for the internet to fail legal challenges in the US as there is broad precedent for both anonymous speech rights and children’s speech rights under the first amendment.
The writing has been on the wall for years with a desire among states to identify individuals using the internet. Whether or not we will continue to win the fight against it is up in the air.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.
> it isn't trade-off. Yes it is. > You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech. No I'm not. ~~~~~~ There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Heck no - I own a Samsung purely to continue to have access to Sound Assistant (to enable individual app volume control without rooting my device). I just want everyone to be clear on why it isn't happening. This is also the same reason why early versions of Android had incredibly fine-grained permission controls that was stripped out... can't have users blocking inter-app marketing key coordination after all.
> The problem is that we'd all blocklist advertisers and then they'd all cry.
Serious question: why can't Meta, Google, and friends just decide not to serve Arizona? I get logistically it would be tough, but if they built that capability, they would have a very robust lever to pull anytime a government pulls this schtick. I would imagine the backlash from the people would fix this pretty quickly. This seems like one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situations. I'd fully support bi…
Why would big tech care? Age gating is probably good for them, and they won’t want the market share loss. A total pull out is what big tech threatens when government is impacting on their profit margins, not working in their favour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for example, go ahead and easily disprove that Twitter, Google, and Facebook had banned the sitting president of the United States in January 2021, simultaneously and voluntarily.
So a couple platforms banning one guy from continuing to attempt an insurrection of the federal government counts as suppressing your political opponents? Would you assert that politicians are by definition untouchable, no matter what they do? Literally. I know your man bragged about this, but was he joking or not?
next example: which 'wing' cheered at COVID misinformation, such as the lab leak theory, being voluntarily suppressed by every platform?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it isn't trade-off. Yes it is. > You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech. No I'm not. ~~~~~~ There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
The chilling effect you’re supporting leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.
> leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people.
This is the current state, today, with anonymity.
> Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.
Which ones?
Serious question: why can't Meta, Google, and friends just decide not to serve Arizona? I get logistically it would be tough, but if they built that capability, they would have a very robust lever to pull anytime a government pulls this schtick. I would imagine the backlash from the people would fix this pretty quickly. This seems like one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situations. I'd fully support bi…
what would those companies do with the infrastructure in AZ? serve clients in other states? I imagine the AZ legislature would have some levers they could pull to make those existing datacenters less effective or more costly to run. Also because the companies are beholden to shareholders and their financial best interest. cutting off millions of clients to make a political statement is not in the companies best finan…