"If Trump wins the election, do you really want him deciding what you're allowed to say?"
The article isn't about anybody deciding what you can say. It's about deciding what's true. Shouldn't we all be interested in that?
I want as much true information out there as possible and as little false information out there as possible and the knee-jerk reaction always seems to be that it's impossible to figure out what's true or that there's no such thing as objectively dangerous speech designed to incite hatred or violence.
Like, just as an example, do you have a problem with a 200 million follower account boosting antisemitic conspiracy theories? Do you see how that's dangerous? Do you think it's possible to design policies that limit the ability of very large accounts to do things like that without somebody else deciding what you can say?
Many of these accounts have far bigger audiences than news organisation, which we DO regulate. Why does it concern you that we regulate these accounts too?
Yeah, I wasn't really arguing with you, Steve QJ, because I honestly don't know how I feel about a lot of your article. I love the idea of not letting people be intentionally dishonest, and I agree that there should be consequences if your lies hurt people. But in a day and age when people talk about "my truth" without batting an eye, and seeing how no one seems to be able to agree on anything (like something as simple as if masking is effective), I really don't see how we regulate any of this. So it's not that I disagree, exactly, I just don't know how anyone could set this up in a way that everyone could agree to. Chris Fox's comment (below) that who gets to decide is an evasion does not ring true to me. In fact, it feels to me like he's the one evading the point...?
(I have to say that I really appreciated you debunking the lie about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater-- the persistence of that one has been driving me bonkers!)
"If Trump wins the election, do you really want him deciding what you're allowed to say?"
The article isn't about anybody deciding what you can say. It's about deciding what's true. Shouldn't we all be interested in that?
I want as much true information out there as possible and as little false information out there as possible and the knee-jerk reaction always seems to be that it's impossible to figure out what's true or that there's no such thing as objectively dangerous speech designed to incite hatred or violence.
Like, just as an example, do you have a problem with a 200 million follower account boosting antisemitic conspiracy theories? Do you see how that's dangerous? Do you think it's possible to design policies that limit the ability of very large accounts to do things like that without somebody else deciding what you can say?
Many of these accounts have far bigger audiences than news organisation, which we DO regulate. Why does it concern you that we regulate these accounts too?
Yeah, I wasn't really arguing with you, Steve QJ, because I honestly don't know how I feel about a lot of your article. I love the idea of not letting people be intentionally dishonest, and I agree that there should be consequences if your lies hurt people. But in a day and age when people talk about "my truth" without batting an eye, and seeing how no one seems to be able to agree on anything (like something as simple as if masking is effective), I really don't see how we regulate any of this. So it's not that I disagree, exactly, I just don't know how anyone could set this up in a way that everyone could agree to. Chris Fox's comment (below) that who gets to decide is an evasion does not ring true to me. In fact, it feels to me like he's the one evading the point...?
(I have to say that I really appreciated you debunking the lie about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater-- the persistence of that one has been driving me bonkers!)