Kamala Harris for Pres

[MT Steve]

We absolutely need regulation of social media companies that are exploiting consumers to wreck our democracy. Their algorithms are leading to mental health issues in teens, communities coming under attack by paid Russian actors, and rampant disinformation in our politics.

Who decides what is misinformation and what isn't? Who decides what content is dangerous to mental health and what isn't?

Ponder that for a second, and hopefully you see how terrifying that can quickly become. The first amendment is a Godsend, and yes you can point at issues created by freedom of speech, but the alternative is far worse, and history is littered with examples of why.

 

[fishonjazz]

We need government regulation on social media because they allow people to post things that drive children to commit suicide.

Fify

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

"Social media should be regulated so that harmful content isn't posted" is great in theory, until the group you strongly disagree with is in charge of deciding what constitutes harmful content.

I'm sure the people in this thread advocating for it wouldn't like it much at all if those in charge decided that any content pertaining to the LGBT community is harmful to children and should therefore be banned on social media. And then you see why it's way too much power to grant the government, and why the 1st amendment is a crucial right.

 

[Bucknutz]

Fify

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Why are children on Social Media? Sounds like a parent issue...

 

[Bucknutz]

"Social media should be regulated so that harmful content isn't posted" is great in theory, until the group you strongly disagree with is in charge of deciding what constitutes harmful content.

I'm sure the people in this thread advocating for it wouldn't like it much at all if those in charge decided that any content pertaining to the LGBT community is harmful to children and should therefore be banned on social media. And then you see why it's way too much power to grant the government, and why the 1st amendment is a crucial right.

Completely agree. It's great when they take down people that you dont agree with, until it happens to them. More speech is always better than less speech.

 

[fishonjazz]

Why are children on Social Media? Sounds like a parent issue...

Why are kids not allowed to drive? Just let them drive and have the parents take care of any issues that might arise right?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Completely agree. It's great when they take down people that you dont agree with, until it happens to them. More speech is always better than less speech.

See for me it's not about "people I don't agree with" it's about "people that are using social media to cause harm to others"


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

Why are kids not allowed to drive? Just let them drive and have the parents take care of any issues that might arise right?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

We're talking about speech. There's very obvious reasons why the constitution doesn't let the government regulate speech like they regulate driving.

 

[MT Steve]

See for me it's not about "people I don't agree with" it's about "people that are using social media to cause harm to others"


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Again, great in theory until the government strongly disagrees with you on what constitutes "causing harm to others". What if the government decides that includes people who provide resources to LGBT kids?

And no, that's not a hypothetical:

Heritage Foundation Says That Of Course GOP Will Use KOSA To Censor LGBTQ Content

We’ve talked a lot about KOSA, the “Kids Online Safety Act” that has massive bipartisan support in Congress. The latest version was introduced with 26 Senators as sponsors or co-sponsors. We’ve exp…

www.techdirt.com

 

[fishonjazz]

We're talking about speech. There's very obvious reasons why the constitution doesn't let the government regulate speech like they regulate driving.

Eh speech is already regulated if it is dangerous. Go to the airport and tell out "I have a bomb" and see if you get in any trouble.

I think the equivalent needs to be regulated on social media.

Like if I post your address on social media and say that you are a pedophile and have children locked in your basement then I think that should be regulated.

If your daughter posts a picture of herself on social media then I don't think I should be allowed to make a comment like "you look like a stupid fat bitch". I dont see why those things should be protected.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

Eh speech is already regulated if it is dangerous. Go to the airport and tell out "I have a bomb" and see if you get in any trouble.

Jesus... just say you don't understand the first amendment.

 

[fishonjazz]

Again, great in theory until the government strongly disagrees with you on what constitutes "causing harm to others". What if the government decides that includes people who provide resources to LGBT kids?

And no, that's not a hypothetical:

Heritage Foundation Says That Of Course GOP Will Use KOSA To Censor LGBTQ Content

We’ve talked a lot about KOSA, the “Kids Online Safety Act” that has massive bipartisan support in Congress. The latest version was introduced with 26 Senators as sponsors or co-sponsors. We’ve exp…

www.techdirt.com

See I think providing resources to someone is different than calling people stupid fat bitches and lying about an establishment being a den of sex traffickers.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Jesus... just say you don't understand the first amendment.

Ok.
Anywho, I think speech that hurts other people should be curbed.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

See I think providing resources to someone is different than calling people stupid fat bitches and lying about an establishment being a den of sex traffickers.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Then you should understand that arguing for regulation of social media includes arguing for regulation of social media by whoever is in charge at the government level, regardless of how hard left or hard right they lean.

You can't just say "I want regulation of social media, but only for speech that I think is harmful." It's all or nothing, because those who strongly disagree with you aren't just going to sit on their hands when they are the ones in power.

 

[fishonjazz]

Jesus... just say you don't understand the first amendment.

You missed the majority of my post btw.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

Ok.
Anywho, I think speech that hurts other people should be curbed.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Unless you can agree with the statement "I think speech that the government decides hurts other people should be curbed, regardless of which party is in power", then you *really* shouldn't want regulation.

 

[fishonjazz]

Then you should understand that arguing for regulation of social media includes arguing for regulation of social media by whoever is in charge at the government level, regardless of how hard left or hard right they lean.

You can't just say "I want regulation of social media, but only for speech that I think is harmful." It's all or nothing, because those who strongly disagree with you aren't just going to sit on their hands when they are the ones in power.

Nah. I think just that speech that is harmful should be regulated. I'm not saying I know how that would look, just that I think it would be a good thing.

Just like I can say all kinds of things in an airport but not certain things.

Or I can talk about lots of stuff in a movie theater but I can't yell out fire.

Same with social media. I think we should be able to say lots of stuff. Most stuff. But not all stuff.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Unless you can agree with the statement "I think speech that the government decides hurts other people should be curbed, regardless of which party is in power", then you *really* shouldn't want regulation.

Well I mean that is what I'm saying.

The government already decides what speech hurts other people in the real world right now and doesn't allow it. Hasn't led to any slippery slope stuff yet.
I think they have done fine with the real world. Maybe they would surprise you and do fine with social media as well. Right now social media censors free speech already themselves. Why do you think that they do a better job than the government would do?



Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Bucknutz]

Well I mean that is what I'm saying.

The government already decides what speech hurts other people in the real world right now and doesn't allow it. Hasn't led to any slippery slope stuff yet.
I think they have done fine with the real world. Maybe they would surprise you and do fine with social media as well. Right now social media censors free speech already themselves. Why do you think that they do a better job than the government would do?



Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Go see what happened in England…I posted about it before.

 

[MT Steve]

Well I mean that is what I'm saying.

The government already decides what speech hurts other people in the real world right now and doesn't allow it. Hasn't led to any slippery slope stuff yet.

Because the "slippery slope" stuff keeps getting stopped in its tracks at the judicial level. Because it's unconstitutional. Because the 1st amendment (which you don't seem to understand, since you keep citing examples that fall outside of it) disallows it.

You should go look at what the GOP believes online harmful speech is. Do you think social media platforms should be banned from allowing people to post helpful resources for the LGBT community? Because saying the government should be able to regulate social media is an open invitation for them to ban precisely that, among many other things you'd strongly disagree with banning. And they have literally tried. Go see the laws that Texas and Florida passed that the courts halted.

Allowing the government to regulate social media is, by extension, allowing the government to decide what constitutes harmful speech. It is NOT what you seem to think it would be (banning speech that you think is harmful).