Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TacoRights t1_itg9zll wrote

"We're getting ready for the shitstorm we helped create."

85

monchota t1_itg8du3 wrote

I have a new idea...no political advertising on social media.

73

badgerbarthowlemeiux t1_ithdlhy wrote

Users will still make political posts.

10

Jolopy00 t1_ithfelj wrote

Ok and?

Isn’t that the point of being involved in democracy?

12

dont_you_love_me t1_itisanw wrote

The point of democracy is to obscure the fact that a small set of wealthy people actually control how society functions, so they can blame "the people" when things go wrong. People are way too easy to manipulate to make democracy a valid form of governance.

3

cosmernaut420 t1_itkak2u wrote

Good thing America is a republic and not a democracy 🙄

5

solscend t1_ithta7s wrote

What about television? Radio? Billboards? Why ban political advertising on strictly social media?

1

monchota t1_ithtz8s wrote

Im fine with banning them , they are already dead in a lot of markets for anyone under 50 anyway.

1

cptnobveus t1_itiwseb wrote

I'm still baffled that anyone falls for or believes any politicians anymore.

2

Sapere_aude75 t1_itgpjt5 wrote

What would the rationale be for that? I mean why would adds on social media platforms be different than say YouTube or tv?

−5

monchota t1_itgyvnf wrote

Youtube is social media btw , what we mean is. Elections should not have ads. Only a website everyone can go to and look at the candidates and thier issues.

6

Sapere_aude75 t1_ith8z44 wrote

You are right about YouTube. I don't think it's appropriate to ban adds on social media as long as they are clearly marked, if traditional media is allowed to. It should be both can or neither can.

I guess what is the thought process on why there shouldn't be adds? Don't misunderstand me, I think it might be a great idea. At the same time I think it would be almost impossible to pass legislation like that. Way to much money/power behind buying elections.

1

Mr_Piddles t1_itgx226 wrote

YouTube is also social media.

2

Sapere_aude75 t1_ith7u49 wrote

Fair point I guess. Then what makes it so different from traditional media?

1

AldoLagana t1_itg63l0 wrote

the minions and teh stoopids will argue over stars on bellies or not...

while the illionaires laugh and plot.

17

bkussow t1_itge33p wrote

Want do you mean brace? They have been going on for a few months already.

11

Harry_Fraud t1_itg6da2 wrote

I bet the move that has been paid for is to emotionally overload and overwhelm as many people as possible, with the goal of removing them from the voting process.

While this works against both sides to decrease voter turnout, the centrists are overwhelmingly affected, and extremists gonna vote anyways. This cooks the books in favor of the red team.

Gotta remember to still turn out and vote your heart, then try to tune out the rest.

10

colonel_beeeees t1_itgyiv6 wrote

And drag your friends along with you. Get them to register to vote if they haven't already

2

bob_brightburn t1_itgtrw7 wrote

Media used to be regulated, in exchange for the networks’ permission to use the airwaves, a public resource.

since TCP/IP was developed using taxpayer dollars the foundational protocol should be considered part of the Commons and massive social networks should be subject to laws regulating disinformation, propaganda, and fraud.

The libertarians among you are aghast of course. But the quality of life has demonstrably degraded with the rise in unfettered social media, coupled with the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine.

The narrative of “the only good system is an unregulated system” is a lie that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

8

elvenrunelord t1_ithejs4 wrote

The quality of life has degraded due to social media? I'd argue its unrestrained inflation and greed by the wealthy and connected that has the angle on degradation of quality of life.

Social media on the other hand has been nothing but a net positive to me because I use it to follow topics I am interested in and don't believe a GODDAMN thing that is said about politics other than if it comes out of the horse's mouth...and even then its likely to be a lie because that is what politicians do..... LIE.

You want to restore quality of life in regards to freedom of speech.....make it a criminal offense with mandatory jail time plus lifetime ban from politics for any politician to tell the public a lie.\

This is the path to a better political arena.

5

bob_brightburn t1_iujnu2e wrote

I have been posting thoughts similar to your 3d paragraph too and totally agree. More generally : anyone posting unsubstantiated or demonstrably false disinformation presented as fact, with the intention of influencing policy, should be held accountable.

the only place i differ with is about the role of social media - maybe better for you because you feel you have more choices but it also has been weaponized by those who are most responsible for the issues in your first paragraph

anyway we agree more than we disagree

2

BullsLawDan t1_ituqulh wrote

>coupled with the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine.

The line you're pushing would be more convincing if you knew what the Fairness Doctrine was, or what it actually did, or its history, or the fact that it isn't coming back without a repeal of the First Amendment.

1

bob_brightburn t1_iuba73w wrote

What makes you think I don’t know? Odd. Let me explain again: the spectrum is a public good, part of the Commons. The DEAL with the media outlets was this: “We the Gov’t will allow you to use part of the public Commons but there will be rules. If you don’t want rules, then you can’t use the airwaves.“ Then far-right radical media whined that it wasn’t “fair” and argued 1st amendment.

I suggest you try the following experiment: walk into the middle of a shopping mall. Scream at the top of your lungs that you set a massive fire and everyone must RUN! RUN! And that you have a gun and you’re going to blow everyone’s head off.

Tell your lawyer to use a 1st amendment defense and get back to us, let us know how it goes.

0

BullsLawDan t1_iui7rnc wrote

>What makes you think I don’t know?

Because you think it's responsible for a degradation in "the quality of life," rather than recognizing that it was always limited and did not work in the first place.

>Let me explain again: the spectrum is a public good, part of the Commons. The DEAL with the media outlets was this: “We the Gov’t will allow you to use part of the public Commons but there will be rules. If you don’t want rules, then you can’t use the airwaves.“ Then far-right radical media whined that it wasn’t “fair” and argued 1st amendment.

LOL, no.

  1. It wasn't a deal with "media outlets." It was a "deal" (an FCC regulation) with broadcast frequency license holders, because they leased spectrum from the FCC (the public).

  2. It did not apply to print, and would/could never apply to other forms of media such as cable and the internet. Because the First Amendment prohibits such regulation on content. As I said.

  3. Far right media whined?? They existed long before the Doctrine was repealed and continued to exist after. It didn't prevent far-right media networks. Argued 1st Amendment? Yeah that's actually the only argument needed, since the 1st Amendment prohibits it from applying to other forms of media and today would probably also prevent it from even applying to broadcast, considering the current realities of the spectrum. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said as much.

  4. You said earlier that TCP/IP was "part of the commons" and that would allow us to regulate social media. Nonsense. Even if, somehow, there was a finding that TCP/IP could be regulated as broadcast spectrum once was in the manner of the Fairness Doctrine, that would be at the level of backbone internet providers or maybe ISPs. But of course, ISPs already have "balance" of the sort of the Fairness Doctrine - they all allow users (in the US) to access the entire internet. And there's no limits on TCP/IP, it's not a scarce resource. So again, this shows you don't really know what the Doctrine was or how it was justified.

>I suggest you try the following experiment: walk into the middle of a shopping mall. Scream at the top of your lungs that you set a massive fire and everyone must RUN! RUN! And that you have a gun and you’re going to blow everyone’s head off.

>Tell your lawyer to use a 1st amendment defense and get back to us, let us know how it goes.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be a reference to. A shopping mall is private property, they can remove people for being a disturbance if they want. Just as media companies - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter - can remove users who are a disturbance. And, thanks to Section 230, they can do so quickly and without facing frivolous liability for those decisions.

If this is some kind of "fire in a crowded theater" reference, LOL.

1

bob_brightburn t1_iujn121 wrote

1 - “spectrum holders” = “media” in shorthand

2 - understood it never applied bla bla, but at the time FD was in effect bcast was massively the primary news source for mass audiences 3 - huh???

4 - nonsense? my turn to LOL, human politics run on stories and narratives, not fact. You can dig up enough words to justify anything including bullshit like “money = speech” so why not “Internet protocols belong to the people” and go from there. It’s a thought experiment: taxes paid for it, let’s have the discussion that regulation up and down the stack is reasonable

5 - so, you going to go for it? Remember “It’s free speech!!” yea fire in a theater. same as “stop the steal!” “vaccines are poison!” and the rest of the rightwing lies and propaganda. It needs to be stopped, and by any available means.

1

dlo88 t1_itg99vu wrote

Change brace to embrace.

7

imstillfly t1_itg9cln wrote

They facilitate and profit off the mayhem

5

THP_music t1_itgkfy3 wrote

On top of the existing mayhem?

4

ninyendo t1_itgallc wrote

How is increased activity mayhem?

2

thatguyad t1_itgrku3 wrote

Its going to be horrific and I truly recommend that people stay well away from all of social media. To be honest I would recommend that for daily life in general.

2

homework8976 t1_ithc1d1 wrote

I think instead of fines the executive board should be required to serve in the military for a period of time.

2

Eurithmic t1_ithub23 wrote

People need to take their foot off each other’s throats long enough to realize both parties serve the same paymasters and that professional politicians are a bad idea. Demand a constitutional convention by pressuring the governors and change the word election to sortition every where it appears in the constitution.

2

itsfuckingpizzatime t1_ititspi wrote

They’re bracing for all the foreign money flooding into their bank accounts to help manipulate a sovereign election.

2

Croncrusader t1_ithphku wrote

“Arsonist is shocked adding gas to flames makes the fire larger”

1

Asleep-Assist124 t1_itk7cpy wrote

The point of democracy is to ensure decent God fearing Republicans are elected.

1

cosmernaut420 t1_itkaa3m wrote

Brace how? They're going to do fuck-all about it. Again.

1

grantnel2002 t1_itko865 wrote

Delete your Facebook accounts.

1

rookieoo t1_ithf7q7 wrote

There are still videos of Biden and Rachel Maddow on YouTube saying you can't get or spread covid if you're vaccinated. The call for censorship is pretty weak when it will most definitely be used in a biased way. Twitter censored the real story about Hunter Bidens laptop being found at a repairshop right before the 2020 election. That's blatant partisan censorship. The Biden administration is being deposed in a case of government collusion with social media to censor speech. Quit whining about misinformation and start holding politicians accountable. The US media is responsible for giving both parties a pass on corruption and violence, enabling the decay of the republic.

−5

Not_Pictured t1_itg3oiv wrote

Brace for the “Reeeeeee”.

We can all agree that no matter the outcome of this or any future election, they are 100% above board. Anyone denying outcomes should be removed from polite society.

Even if it’s an absolute blow out, or a squeaker with unexplained cars parked in a Florida airport filled with blank ballots, anyone questioning it should be banned outright.

−18

Vegaprime t1_itg6etd wrote

Ya, there has been shadiness.. It's been largely from one side that's learn to project to the other tho.

3

digital_darkness t1_itg5rjj wrote

That’s not how free speech works.

−5

barneythedinosar t1_itg98o9 wrote

Free speech just means government can’t punish you for saying it. Doubt OP meant it’s the government that should be doing the removing.

5

Not_Pictured t1_itgcxfv wrote

Free speech means freedom to speak. Just because you enjoy suppressing speech as a private individual doesn’t mean you are pro-free speech. It means you are anti-free speech and delusional.

−1

barneythedinosar t1_itgkej9 wrote

Lmao read the constitution buddy. You can stop after the first amendment, you don’t really need to get that far.

And if you’re free to speak, I’m free to shut you up…it’s my freedom of “speak”

1

super_potato1806 t1_iti4kq8 wrote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read that again, slowly, and focus on the first few words. "Congress shall" not billy bob in his backyard.

0

Not_Pictured t1_itg8f05 wrote

Free speech is a right wing talking point.

−1

digital_darkness t1_itg9i7p wrote

The 1st amendment isn’t right wing.

1

Not_Pictured t1_itgbmpe wrote

It’s certainly not Reddit wing.

−1

Heroshade t1_itgeqti wrote

I thought it wasn’t going to get dumber and then it did.

3

Not_Pictured t1_itggbtf wrote

Every single person on this site advocating for corporate censorship knows that the false image that they hold a majority opinion depends on it.

Reddit is full of fringe left wingers who can’t compete in the realm of ideas without censorship.

−2

[deleted] t1_itga9i4 wrote

You mean they brace for full suppression of conservative thought mode. Like when they told us "nothing to see here" regarding Hunter Biden's laptop.

−22

Heroshade t1_itgewp3 wrote

> Hunter Biden’s laptop

How to tell if someone’s opinions are worth fuck all

13

rookieoo t1_ithfqv3 wrote

The story is the censorship of the original story, not the laptop. The laptop was real, and it was left at a repair shop irresponsibly by Hunter Biden. Instead of a quick story about Hunters antics and business ties it became a story about censorship of unfavorable information.

−2

NuclearBinChicken69 t1_itiezef wrote

What was wrong with Hunter Bidens laptop? The dude was a crackhead, and
being a crackhead isn't illegal, there are a lot of people in the US
that are crackheads lol. He's not the first dude to rail lines off a
hookers ass

1

[deleted] t1_itiggpg wrote

What do you know about Tony Bobulinski? About Burisma? Sinopec? The "big guy"?

What do you know about lying on gun purchase forms about drug usage?

All on the laptop.

−1

NuclearBinChicken69 t1_itihamy wrote

I still fail to see how that's anyone's business my man. I don't really care about any of that stuff bc he's just a random dude and not an elected official. Why do people like you care so much about some random person?

2