Kamala Harris for Pres

[Douchebag K]

if there is anything i've learned in the last 1/2 dozen years it's that government departments are very trustworthy and principled, are run without any agenda and are monitored closely to ensure no waste of the taxpayer's money and those working within are subject to swift scrutiny and consequences for any and all mistakes they make no matter how egregious. There should just be a lot more government departments deciding what we should be able to think and say, and i have zero qualms that they can police themselves and will stay within their operating criteria.

 

[Douchebag K]

Of course not silly. The government doesn't know me. I would have no involvement. They would make a department that is in charge of what kind of content can be posted, just like other social media sites do now. When the rules are broken, bans are issued. No one has to go to jail or face penalties. Temperature in society gets cooled down. Awesomeness.

Remember, just a few decades ago no one could post anything on social media. We somehow survived.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

i agree if we could go back in time and prevent social media from ever evolving that would be awesome

 

[fishonjazz]

You're calling for the creation of a government agency that would be in charge of moderating all social interactions online?

And you think this is a good idea?

Also, please finally address the fact that what you're advocating for isn't going to result in the censoring of what you disagree with, it'll be the censoring of what the government disagrees with. The GOP's #1 thinktank has flat out said they'll use social media regulation laws to censor LGBT content, as I linked earlier.

I'm not calling for anything. I think that some things should not be allowed on social media.
Make the committee to decide non partisan. Don't have it be a gop or democratic committee. Don't have the gop think tank be involved.
We have an FBI currently. Why didn't the gop or Democrats just take over the FBI and only prosecute/investigate the people on the other side? Because it isn't a partisan organization. Just make the social media censoring committee non partisan as well.
Let's say the nightmare scenario happens. Lgbtq content gets censored.
There was no lgbtq content on social media in 1986. I don't remember it being an issue.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Mongoose]

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.

Exactly- what happens when the regulating agency become completely compromised like it is now with government, healthcare, banking, weapons of war, and so on.

 

[MT Steve]

I'm not calling for anything. I think that some things should be allowed on social media.

Let's say the nightmare scenario happens. Lgbtq content gets censored.
There was no lgbtq content on social media in 1986. I don't remember it being an issue.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

It probably was an issue that LGBT children in the 80's had scarce resources compared to today thanks to the internet, but I'm glad you're fine with taking all that away because you can't personally remember it being an issue.

 

[fishonjazz]

It probably was an issue that LGBT children in the 80's had scarce resources compared to today thanks to the internet, but I'm glad you're fine with taking all that away because you can't personally remember it being an issue.

What resources are they being given now that they couldn't get without social media.

Also, just make the committee partisan. Don't have the gop think tank involved. Censor malicious content. Bad language (we all know the swear words right?). Violent content etc.

Does posting about lgbtq fall under any of that? Nope. They all good.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

I think that many people just think our government sucks and so anything they get involved in would suck.

Im different. I really like our government. I think they are awesome.

Like let's says we didn't have an FDA and companies were selling us food that was hurting us and someone suggested the government create an agency to try to stop that. I bet people would freak out and think that would be a horrible idea to have the government control the food!

I have been to countries without an FDA. The FDA is a good thing. I see it in action at my job every day.

EPA is a good thing.

I think there are plenty of good government employees with common sense. Social media companies would still be ran by social media owners. Just like my employer isn't ran by the government. But the government has put rules in place that my company must adhere to.

Take a similar approach. Have the agency be non partisan. Only censor the worst things and the worst offenders. Use common sense.

I'm an optimist. I think our country and government is capable of making social media less toxic and unhealthy for our society. Just like the FDA and EPA does for our food and air. They are not perfect but better than no regulation at all.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

What resources are they being given now that they couldn't get without social media.

... access to online LGBT communities? Is this a serious question?

Also, just make the committee partisan. Don't have the gop think tank involved. Censor malicious content. Bad language (we all know the swear words right?). Violent content etc.

Does posting about lgbtq fall under any of that? Nope. They all good

Douchebag said it better than I ever could:

if there is anything i've learned in the last 1/2 dozen years it's that government departments are very trustworthy and principled, are run without any agenda and are monitored closely to ensure no waste of the taxpayer's money and those working within are subject to swift scrutiny and consequences for any and all mistakes they make no matter how egregious. There should just be a lot more government departments deciding what we should be able to think and say, and i have zero qualms that they can police themselves and will stay within their operating criteria.

 

[fishonjazz]

... access to online LGBT communities? Is this a serious question?


Douchebag said it better than I ever could:

Ok. No censoring of the lgbtq content just for being lgbtq content. Treat it the same as other content.
Don't allow the GOP think-tank to have anything to do with this new agency.
This is great. The government would have these kinds of discussions. They would use logic and common sense.

Think of other government agencies. Are the FBI targeting the lgbtq community?
Does the FDA regulate harder on certain companies than others due to political or cultural leanings?
How about the EPA?
The FCC?



Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

Think of other government agencies. Are the FBI targeting the lgbtq community?

No, because there are currently no laws in place that prevent the lgbt community from freely expressing themselves, so the FBI has no basis to go after them.

Does the FDA regulate harder on certain companies than others due to political or cultural leanings?
How about the EPA?
The FCC?

We're not talking about regulating certain companies harder. A more accurate comparison would be "Do the standards or rules by which the FDA/EPA/FCC regulate discriminate against people due to political or cultural leanings?" And the answer is no - because political/cultural leanings are not what they regulate to begin with.

 

[MT Steve]

Funny thing is, on a fundamental level I'm not even against a perfect committee that moderates people who say malicious, hateful things online. If it indeed did work as well as you're envisioning, was guaranteed to always do so, and left open no door where the courts would use it as precedent to justify allowing the government control over other forms of speech.

But that just isn't likely. I super strongly believe in the importance of the 1st amendment, because I know what history has shown happens when the government gets access to the power of restricting speech beyond very exceptional circumstances. And right now, when both parties talk about regulating social media, they aren't talking about forming a non-paritsan committee and taking extreme steps to ensure it's perfectly contained to *only* the speech you're talking about. No, they're talking about having much greater, unchecked power.

I just don't buy the argument that "They do a good job regulating food safety, so why not speech?" The principle that the founding fathers believed in, that I do too, is that the regulation of ideas and beliefs, or in other words, speech, is one of the (if not the most) primary things that separates a government from being a democratic one to being an oppressive one.

 

[fishonjazz]

No, because there are currently no laws in place that prevent the lgbt community from freely expressing themselves, so the FBI has no basis to go after them.


We're not talking about regulating certain companies harder. A more accurate comparison would be "Do the standards or rules by which the FDA/EPA/FCC regulate discriminate against people due to political or cultural leanings?" And the answer is no - because political/cultural leanings are not what they regulate to begin with.

Exactly. This social media agency wouldn't regulate political or cultural leanings either. Just common sense stuff. If someone says they are going to murder someone, then boom. Banned.
If someone is being malicious to someone, boom banned. Language stuff (swear words and the like). It's not that hard imo.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Funny thing is, on a fundamental level I'm not even against a perfect committee that moderates people who say malicious, hateful things online. If it indeed did work as well as you're envisioning, was guaranteed to always do so, and left open no door where the courts would use it as precedent to justify allowing the government control over other forms of speech.

But that just isn't likely. I super strongly believe in the importance of the 1st amendment, because I know what history has shown happens when the government gets access to the power of restricting speech beyond very exceptional circumstances. And right now, when both parties talk about regulating social media, they aren't talking about forming a non-paritsan committee and taking extreme steps to ensure it's perfectly contained to *only* the speech you're talking about. No, they're talking about having much greater, unchecked power.

I just don't buy the argument that "They do a good job regulating food safety, so why not speech?" The principle that the founding fathers believed in, that I do too, is that the regulation of ideas and beliefs, or in other words, speech, is one of the (if not the most) primary things that separates a government from being a democratic one to being an oppressive one.

I don't consider "you stupid bitch" or something like that to be an idea or belief.

But I agree with this post. Only thing different between us I think is my optimism and belief that social media could be made less toxic without the negative consequences that you are afraid would happen.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Mongoose]

What time in history are the sensors the good guys? What time in history was banning free speech done by the good guys? The answer is never.

 

[Mongoose]

They should ban all the circle jerking trump hating dip ***** in the internet. Look at these radicalized psychos trying to assassinate an ex president of the United States twice for heavens sake. We see morons here cheering this behavior on because they’ve been radicalized by each other and the main stream news. It’s so dangerous to fill each other with hate and stupidity. Especially when they are so stupid to begin with.

 

[LogGrad98]

i agree if we could go back in time and prevent social media from ever evolving that would be awesome

That is one thing that should have been aborted, no doubt. The damage done to society by social media is immeasurable. And I'm afraid long-term it will prove to be devastating.

 

[fishonjazz]

That is one thing that should have been aborted, no doubt. The damage done to society by social media is immeasurable. And I'm afraid long-term it will prove to be devastating.

Ya and we can't count on social media to censor themselves. They want clicks, views, and people to spend as much time as possible on their site. They want to make money.

Toxicity sells. On jazz fanz how often do you see long back and forth conversations between posters who are saying nice things to each other or just talking politely about stuff. Almost never.

But if we are in a heated toxic argument then the conversation will go back and forth for days.

Musk, Zuckerberg, Jason etc aren't going to try to lessen the toxicity. That would only hurt their business interests.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Rubashov]

if there is anything i've learned in the last 1/2 dozen years it's that government departments are very trustworthy and principled, are run without any agenda and are monitored closely to ensure no waste of the taxpayer's money and those working within are subject to swift scrutiny and consequences for any and all mistakes they make no matter how egregious. There should just be a lot more government departments deciding what we should be able to think and say, and i have zero qualms that they can police themselves and will stay within their operating criteria.

Yeah when was in government work we used to heat the office by shoveling cash onto an open fire. We had a heater but burning cash was way more fun.