Ohhb(notm)ama

Spoiler : I just thought this funny :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I have a wheel with a bunch of random political-esque topics, and every time someone posts another "free speech good?" thread I roll it. My personal opinion on free speech is that I support unconditional free speech on everything except for topics that have been rolled before, discussion of which which I support unequivocally banning.

This time, it's the topic of Mexican drug mules that must be banned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no rights. *shoots you and walks away*

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

I have thought about this issue at great length. After thorough introspection, I am still not sure whether we should have the free speech. In fact, I am not sure whether we should even have the free speech to discuss whether we should have the free speech. But after extremely careful consideration, I am ready to commit myself to the view that we should at least have the free speech to speak of whether we should have the free speech to discuss the free speech. So I wish to pull the conversation back to there, then gradually consider how we proceed.

Due to my immense study of this topic, my thoughts may prove too profound to follow... but do not be afraid to ask for clarification.

---

On a serious note, we've had a lot of these threads. I have lost count, but this is probably at least the fifth. I don't mind reading a debate, but can't we at least discuss something new?

---

DON'T MIND ME...
I'M JUST BABBLING ABOUT!
So, Obama wants more tech regulations in order to combat misinformation on social media.
Cool. But who'd do the regulating though? The government?
Plenty of topics are politics based, while in the US - every political opinion is grouped in one of two groups thanks to their two party system (not very democratic system if you ask me btw). Which group would get the honor to choose what is right and what is misinformation?
If we're talking about only objective information - well, government officials themselves have spread misinformation about let's say Covid.

Ok let's say no political opinions would ever get moderated (lol) and objective stuff by experts only. What about every other country in the world that is not the US? What if let's say 50 of them wanted each different stuff censored to their citizens?

I feel like government tech regulations for censoring social media is just not realistic. Though there's only a few countries large enough for the tech companies to comply to their demands, and perhaps for some of them it can work well. I just don't see USA being one of them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/Waffling Waffle Off

boof

Mass misinformation is objectively very harmful.

But perhaps the biggest obstacle in addressing it is that there seems to be zero good solutions for dealing with it. (As you just pointed out several glaring flaws with the government taking that role)

I have no idea what a good solution would be either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

---

Woah, he's the one who came up with this? I thought he was just more or less repeating what everyone else says when he said that, but... apparently not!

But uh, how is this related to the topic? I might have an idea of where you're going with it, but I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lag

Mass misinformation is objectively very harmful.

But perhaps the biggest obstacle in addressing it is that there seems to be zero good solutions for dealing with it. (As you just pointed out several glaring flaws with the government taking that role)

I have no idea what a good solution would be either.

---

Well, the least bad solution is to have people, especially those who actually know things, express the truth by themselves, and to provide quality education to the masses as much as possible. Going with the state censorship option, apart from literally "just murder people already, it's totally legal guys, lawyers are publishing misinformation!", is denying democracy. Now you might say "but democracy is impossible and it's best to have an elite lead the stupid masses", but we've seen where "enlightened absolutism" led - and later, where fascism did. So really, the solution is citizen participation to discussions - and in this sense, people taking the fight to social media to provide reliable information and to actually educate are doing a great service to their country, unironically.

My position on free speech on the internet is that anyone who has unironically cited a philosopher or a philosopher's opinion in any internet discussion should be banned from all social media and from ever communicating again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

My position on free speech on the internet is that anyone who has unironically cited a philosopher or a philosopher's opinion in any internet discussion should be banned from all social media and from ever communicating again.

---

based and redpilled

obamna

MMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

MMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

---

I second this