We’re still citing Greenwald, huh? Ok.

Didn’t realize that Trump and Barr ordering a peaceful protest be disrupted and disbanded by force wasn’t restricting speech, but go on Mr. “I’m retired and also have a fake account.”

ETA: lol, do you pay for that ****?

I just posted one instance of many of republican led state legislators instituting new restrictive voting laws.

That’s not restricting speech though according to Mr. “I faked an account for half a year because I’m so effing weird.”

"I may not like you saying completely false and racist things online, causing actual real-world consequences like COVID deaths and insurrections, but I'll support big tech and support your right to say it."

Also, Orwell would have voted for Biden.

Posted by all3 on 2/20/2021 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Come on Gg, that's not fair. They only want speech restricted when it's something they disagree with.

Yes, I disagree with misinformation. That's the entirety of the Greenwald article. Congrats all3, on being pro misinformation.

You may be using the term ‘Orwellian’ wrong. Here’s what George Orwell was actually writing about

“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” -- George Orwell

Is it liberals or leftists?

The social media company should probably have a right to determine what and who is allowed on their platform, with restrictions.

We can start at a base level. Do you think that Twitter or Facebook should be allowed to have a TOS? Related, do you think that Twitter and Facebook should take action if, for instance, an account is spamming porn repeatedly at another person?

Also, it is possible to ever determine if something is "true" or "untrue"?

Posted by tangplay on 2/20/2021 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Is it liberals or leftists?

The social media company should probably have a right to determine what and who is allowed on their platform, with restrictions.

We can start at a base level. Do you think that Twitter or Facebook should be allowed to have a TOS? Related, do you think that Twitter and Facebook should take action if, for instance, an account is spamming porn repeatedly at another person?

The social media company SHOULD have a right to determine who is allowed on their platform, and what those people are allowed to do/post while there.

The problem, I think, is the perception that Congressional committees are holding more serious antitrust action over their head and telling them what to allow. Which is not, in fact, ok.

If Congress ever passes legislation to restrict social media companies, I would probably oppose that. But I don't see a problem with inquiring as to why a platform would allow this or that to exist.

I just don't see why the right complains so much about this. You're allowed to support Trump on Twitter. You aren't allowed to support Biden on Parler.

There's no "correct" answer for what to do about disinformation on social media. Which is why guitarguy has never, and will never advocate for a solution. He'll just complain from a distance.

I disagree. I think both sides should be able to agree on the solution as well: revoke or alter Section 230 to make social media platforms liable for information they distribute.

The end of section 230 would mean the end of social media as we know it. They, if anything, would have to censor FAR more.

Look at the lawsuits from Dominion and others towards Newsmax, Fox News, and OAN about their election lies. Your proposal would mean that, but against Facebook and Twitter and 500x worse. If I'm Zuckerberg or Dorsey, I probably wouldn't tolerate ANY political discussion on my platforms.

I'm genuinely surprised to see such a take from you, dahs. Can you justify it?