291–300 of 350 posts
There are many good reasons to ban TikTok. For example, reciprocity on free trade. Why should Chinese companies get access to the American market when no western social media apps are allowed in China?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is the way… I find absolutely ridiculous every social media / free speech discussion if platform does not have proof of identity. while you and I may have right to free speech the bots etc do not. hence, there is no free speech without proof of identity imo
Of course there is free speech without proof of identity. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. The right to speak anonymously is fundamental to the right to speak freely. You haven't proven the identity of "bdangubic" to us yet here you are exercising your right to free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is the way… I find absolutely ridiculous every social media / free speech discussion if platform does not have proof of identity. while you and I may have right to free speech the bots etc do not. hence, there is no free speech without proof of identity imo
I think anonymity is important for some kind of coordination problems (e.g. against an authoritarian government). A better solution is to have a nominal fee, maybe $10/yr to be platformed, that way it's expensive to bot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there is free speech without proof of identity. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. The right to speak anonymously is fundamental to the right to speak freely. You haven't proven the identity of "bdangubic" to us yet here you are exercising your right to free speech.
what if I was an AI bot programmed under the direction of President Xi? :)
The point is that would have no bearing at all on whether or not you would have the right to free speech if you were a person who chose not to reveal your identity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would require legacy reporters to get out on the streets and do some reporting.
Can you imagine, holding public servants (a president for example) accountable for their statements… practically unheard of in the last decade…
> Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally. These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature, increasingly so in the age of LLMs. They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astrot…
> These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature The US Gov has a mandate to preserve and uphold democracy. Shuttering communication is prior restraint - an anti-democratic action. Platforms have no mandate to preserve and uphold democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in some cases some != all therefore, it is not a real-name only network. I'm not asking for Facebook to become a confirmed real-name only network. I am not asking for anyone to be compelled to supply a confirmed real-name only network. I am saying: I wish that one existed and caught on with consumers.
I totally get what you’re saying. I just don't know how you actually implement this at global scale. I dislike Facebook and have not used it in over a decade, but I do believe they at least used to try and enforce real name policies.
2) I'm not discussing the practicality of it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is the way… I find absolutely ridiculous every social media / free speech discussion if platform does not have proof of identity. while you and I may have right to free speech the bots etc do not. hence, there is no free speech without proof of identity imo
I think anonymity is important for some kind of coordination problems (e.g. against an authoritarian government). A better solution is to have a nominal fee, maybe $10/yr to be platformed, that way it's expensive to bot.
(GP and I disagree on whether every platform should require it)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is the way… I find absolutely ridiculous every social media / free speech discussion if platform does not have proof of identity. while you and I may have right to free speech the bots etc do not. hence, there is no free speech without proof of identity imo
Of course there is free speech without proof of identity. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. The right to speak anonymously is fundamental to the right to speak freely. You haven't proven the identity of "bdangubic" to us yet here you are exercising your right to free speech.
They're not saying people do not have the freedom to speak anonymously, they're saying that computer programs, by virtue of not being a person, do not have freedom of speech under the Constitution.
Obviously you can argue that you have First Amendment protections to write programs that then speak for you, which is essentially where the argument should happen. I think a very reasonable concession is: you can write programs that speak for you, so long as they do not masquerade as another person (real or fake). I.e.: you can write a program that speaks as you, or you can write a program that speaks as a program.