PostmodernProphet (05-18-2022)
PostmodernProphet (05-18-2022)
This is not even a new problem before us - the same concerns you claim today were aired in the 1800's
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-truth/375171/
make no mistake - the fear has always been about losing control. It is what you fear - in that you can't control election outcomes. it is what the media fears as well
Blackwater Lunchbreak (05-18-2022)
I sure do. And, based on some of the statements in this thread, so do some on the left like Bartender, Evince, Mina,...etc.
It is scary when both sides want to restrict speech because it is in our interest.
Being a fascist requires a lot more than just restricting speech--but, that is an element.
it is a whiny bitch issue - and is larkely partisan - in that snow flakes like you worry about speech
I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population
my link made similar claims in the 1800s about the telegraph
Well, I don't think the telegraph is really comparable to the internet.
If you don't think the internet has changed us radically in just a couple of decades, this thread probably has no interest for you. I think it has the potential to make things very dystopian, very quickly.
it is comparable - communication that was greatly improved with technology.
the internet also lowered the barrier to entry - which is the crux of the matter. your control over the narrative is being removed - you only see it as bad because you like centralized power. I don't - so the internet is a blessing
Well, folks that don't like Brandon have to sit around listening to you spread misinformation about them and pretend that they are the same as the guy spreading racism.
What is a good call? It is to let folks disagree.. vociferously. You get to set the record straight, we get to set the record straight and both of us can hate all over the racists, but the reality is folks get to say stuff you disagree with and even stuff you think is wrong because they have a right to free speech. We will not be updating the constitution so the government has no power whatsoever to stop it from happening.
Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
- -- Aristotle
Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
- -- The Buddha
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- -- Aristotle
anatta (05-17-2022), Callinectes (05-18-2022), PostmodernProphet (05-18-2022)
We do indeed. But as they currently stand, they pose two obstacles to anyone thinking of suing for those things (at least anyone with modest means):
(1) Generally speaking, people bear the cost of their own litigation, even if they win.
(2) It can be very hard to prove what your actual damages are in a slander or libel situation, and courts are likely to decide on very low numbers in cases where the plaintiff isn't wealthy (since, in theory, any loss of earning power from being defamed has a low dollar figure, if your earning power was low to begin with).
Because of those two things, people can be in a situation where even if they win the lawsuit, they wind up worse off -- like spending a hundred thousand dollars to litigate, and only getting a few thousand dollars of damages when they win.
For the wealthy, that's a smaller issue, since they can afford even the most ridiculous of nuisance suits merely to inconvenience and impoverish their adversaries (e.g., Deven Nunes suing Twitter and a Twitter account holder over a satirical account purporting to be run by Nunes's cow). But for poorer people, such lawsuits are generally not a practical possibility, since they can't afford the legal expenses.
The reforms I'm talking about would address both prongs of that problem. It would allow those who are successful to recover reasonable legal expenses, in addition to actual damages, if they win, so that even poor people could sue with a contingency arrangement with the lawyers. And it would make it so that libeling or slandering someone, even someone with very modest earning potential, had a fixed minimum price tag associated with it, so that poorer people could hit back hard enough to create an incentive not to prey on them that way.
Yes we should censor the largest proliferators of disinformation in human history IE the left, start with banning the NYTs, CNN, MSNBC, etc, basically the entirety of the MSM and big tech that act as direct ministries of propaganda for the DNC and unelected permanent administrative state.
Bookmarks