Kamala Harris for Pres

[FalseFlagg K]

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).

Our government in Australia is just proposing legislation to compel social media companies to regulate what is deemed to be "misinformation" and disinformation" wtf so who decides this **** what is and what isn't .. Unbelievable

 

[Bucknutz]

Our government in Australia is just proposing legislation to compel social media companies to regulate what is deemed to be "misinformation" and disinformation" wtf so who decides this **** what is and what isn't .. Unbelievable

That is unbelievable. Sorry to hear that man.

 

[fishonjazz]

Because the "slippery slope" stuff keeps getting stopped in its tracks at the judicial level.

I'm cool with the judicial level stopping social media censoring in it's tracks when the censuring isn't warranted/doesn't make sense.

I mean right here on jazzfanz speech is censored all the time. I'm cool with it. I think we all are. What if the government was censoring the words **** and **** and **** instead of Jason? I wouldn't care.

What if Jason decided that you couldn't criticize trump on jazzfanz? I think that would be dumb and would suck but I would fine in the end. Currently Jason could choose to do that if he wanted to. There is nothing stopping him.

I don't know why trusting Elon musk to decide what is allowed on X is any better or worse than the government deciding what is allowed on X. At least with the government there would be lots of people involved in the decision rather than just 1.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

So were you fine when posters here were saying that they hoped Trump got shot in the assassination? Or that they shouldn’t have missed? Is that speech that you want to regulate? Or is that speech okay to use?

I'm good either way on that. Just like I'm fine with Jason not allowing ****, ****, **** on here. I would be fine if he didn't allow those posters to say they wish the shooter wouldn't have missed.

In fact, I would prefer that.

I have said it before, I go to another sports forum and they censor WAY more than jazz fanz. I like that better.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Bucknutz]

I'm cool with the judicial level stopping social media censoring in it's tracks when the censuring isn't warranted/doesn't make sense.

I mean right here on jazzfanz speech is censored all the time. I'm cool with it. I think we all are. What if the government was censoring the words **** and **** and **** instead of Jason? I wouldn't care.

What if Jason decided that you couldn't criticize trump on jazzfanz? I think that would be dumb and would suck but I would fine in the end. Currently Jason could choose to do that if he wanted to. There is nothing stopping him.

I don't know why trusting Elon musk to decide what is allowed on X is any better or worse than the government deciding what is allowed on X. At least with the government there would be lots of people involved in the decision rather than just 1.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Elon can’t throw someone in prison.

 

[fishonjazz]

View: https://x.com/narrativegone/status/1833414210782470560?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/leehath1968/status/1833931808481968622?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/gspellchecker/status/1823330130409763225?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/bubblebathgirl/status/1821935308578976249?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/kangminjlee/status/1620332583010865152?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ

Fwiw when I talk of government censoring content I'm talking about stuff like Jason does on jazzfanz. I'm not talking about arresting people. I'm talking about deleting dangerous content and blocking out mean spirited attacking stuff. You know, censoring, not arresting.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Our government in Australia is just proposing legislation to compel social media companies to regulate what is deemed to be "misinformation" and disinformation" wtf so who decides this **** what is and what isn't .. Unbelievable

Who decides it currently and why do you trust their judgement?
Many sites regulate disinformation and misinformation already. The person or persons deciding it currently may be worse at it than the government.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Bucknutz]

Fwiw when I talk of government censoring content I'm talking about stuff like Jason does on jazzfanz. I'm not talking about arresting people. I'm talking about deleting dangerous content and blocking out mean spirited attacking stuff. You know, censoring, not arresting.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Yeah agree, but you think government is going to stop at “blocking out” content? Would it be a nicer place where everyone is just pleasant with each other, sure I would like that but the government will not give that to you.

 

[fishonjazz]

Elon can’t throw someone in prison.

I dont think the government should be able to either. I just think It would be fine if they censored dangerous and malicious content.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Yeah agree, but you think government is going to stop at “blocking out” content?

Sure I do. Just put it in the legislation or whatever. Have it say right in there that they can't arrest you. Easy peasy.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MTS]

Fwiw when I talk of government censoring content I'm talking about stuff like Jason does on jazzfanz. I'm not talking about arresting people. I'm talking about deleting dangerous content and blocking out mean spirited attacking stuff. You know, censoring, not arresting.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

How would you feel about Jason facing civil penalties for failing to delete LGBT-related content?

The government isn't going to limit itself to "Social media platforms shall not allow people to say things that Fish thinks are mean".

I don't know why trusting Elon musk to decide what is allowed on X is any better or worse than the government deciding what is allowed on X. At least with the government there would be lots of people involved in the decision rather than just 1.

Because X is one platform. If I don't like what's disallowed there, I can go elsewhere.

Any government regulation would apply to *all* platforms. Including Jazzfanz.

 

[fishonjazz]

The government isn't going to limit itself to "Social media platforms shall not allow people to say things that Fish thinks are mean".

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