What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Ya I'm sure Putin wants the candidate who shows the most support for Ukraine to win. The candidate who supports NATO the most to win.

Sure.......

Sarcasm.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Bucknutz said:
I know most of you guys are a 1 issue voter (Trump). This would be my 1 issue:


View: https://x.com/micsolana/status/1831715558074830883?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Silence speech. This is crazy. Government oversight on speech. Yeah no thanks, ever.
Click to expand...
This might shock you but I actually don't like hate or misinformation and would love it if there were less of both things.

There is another sports message board that I hang out on. There is so much that I can't post on there. It's extremely strict. I love that I can't call people names or hurl insults and can't have people call me names or hurl insults at me. It's quite refreshing to be honest.

I think it's awesome that if you try to call someone a douchebag in the yahoo comments section then your post won't be approved.


Wish jazzfanz was more restricted on that kind of thing tbh.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
This might shock you but I actually don't like hate or misinformation and would love it if there were less of both things.

There is another sports message board that I hang out on. There is so much that I can't post on there. It's extremely strict. I love that I can't call people names or hurl insults and can't have people call me names or hurl insults at me. It's quite refreshing to be honest.

I think it's awesome that if you try to call someone a douchebag in the yahoo comments section then your post won't be approved.


Wish jazzfanz was more restricted on that kind of thing tbh.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Is the Government or owner of the boards policing their message boards? My view again is I do not want the Government to be the oversight on speech.
 
Bucknutz said:
Is the Government or owner of the boards policing their message boards? My view again is I do not want the Government to be the oversight on speech.
Click to expand...
I would add that when a board admin holds you responsible then you lose the ability to post on that board. When a government threatens to hold you responsible it means guns, badges, and forfeiture of property, freedom, or maybe even life. Being allowed to voice approved content on Yahoo, and being allowed to voice approved content in North Korea is not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Bucknutz said:
Is the Government or owner of the boards policing their message boards? My view again is I do not want the Government to be the oversight on speech.
Click to expand...
Eh, I dont especially trust the owner of yahoo any more or less than the government. Anywho, I think the idea of trying to limit the hate and misinformation on social media sites is a good idea. Would it be executed well? Idk. Maybe maybe not. Would good come from it? Idk. Maybe maybe not. I was simply responding to the proposal of the DOJ trying to limit hate and misinformation as being a good proposal. I dont really care who does it if it works tbh.

I do know that some kids commit suicide due to misinformation posted about them (slander related things) and due to hate received from social media posts. I dont like kids killing themselves or even being attacked and hated on so if someone wants to try to do something about that then im all ears.
 
Bucknutz said:
I know most of you guys are a 1 issue voter (Trump). This would be my 1 issue:


View: https://x.com/micsolana/status/1831715558074830883?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Silence speech. This is crazy. Government oversight on speech. Yeah no thanks, ever.
Click to expand...

I agree. If you take a pledge to uphold the constitution, you should probably not be proposing ideas that are blatantly unconstitutional.

It's become a trend among politicians in general to ignore the First Amendment when it comes to social media. The legislature in Utah recently passed a law that would essentially ban minors from using social media, period, while requiring adults to verify their age through uploading an ID or some other means.

In any case, I expect none of this will amount to anything because I don't think any of these social media censorings will survive in court.
 
Bucknutz said:
I know most of you guys are a 1 issue voter (Trump). This would be my 1 issue:


View: https://x.com/micsolana/status/1831715558074830883?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Silence speech. This is crazy. Government oversight on speech. Yeah no thanks, ever.
Click to expand...


I'm not following on this too closely.

Is this the government asking for social media companies to implement and execute on their own TOS? I'm not a lawyer but it may not trigger First Amendment protections. Nobody is inherently entitled to free speech anywhere at all times. You're not entitled to protest on private property. Isn't social media space online basically the same thing? In my mind, the government asking companies to police their platforms is not the same as prosecuting individuals for what they've said. The latter is the protection offered by the First Amendment.

That said,

I think a revision or re-interpretation of the First Amendment of sorts is needed to govern social media platforms. Some sort of online public square provision so that people can have their speech protected on these platforms. Entrusting policing to corporations is going end badly either way.
 
Safetydan said:
I'm not following on this too closely.

Is this the government asking for social media companies to implement and execute on their own TOS? I'm not a lawyer but it may not trigger First Amendment protections. Nobody is inherently entitled to free speech anywhere at all times. You're not entitled to protest on private property. Isn't social media space online basically the same thing? In my mind, the government asking companies to police their platforms is not the same as prosecuting individuals for what they've said. The latter is the protection offered by the First Amendment.

That said,

I think a revision or re-interpretation of the First Amendment of sorts is needed to govern social media platforms. Some sort of online public square provision so that people can have their speech protected on these platforms. Entrusting policing to corporations is going end badly either way.
Click to expand...
Eh, 1A is fine as it is to prevent government overreach into individual thought. That said, every "right" has reasonable limits and 1A does not apply to private platforms anyway.
 
Safetydan said:
I think a revision or re-interpretation of the First Amendment of sorts is needed to govern social media platforms.
Click to expand...
Revision or re-interpretation of the First Amendment isn't a thing that is going to happen, but lucky for your point of view, it isn't necessary. A revision or re-interpretation of Section 230 will do what you are proposing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top