Free Speech And Censorship

[steve_bank]

When I was a kid an aunt told me in high school civics class she was taught with freedom goes responsibility.

Musk and Zuckerberg are not acting as responsible citizens. Neither is Trump.

Free speech and freedom of the press meant criticism government without fear of government suppression. I doubt it was intended to mean large scale spreading of disorder and misinformation.

We have in Musk and Zuckerberg two wealthy individuals presuming to personally decide what free speech is, even in the face of overwhelming evidence as to the harm their platforms are causing. By virtue of wealth they are beyond any consequences of their actions.

Musk is clearly irrational, unstable, and eccentric. As is Trump. Trmnp sowed discord and a lot of trouble by denying the election results, and he now admits he lost

Dormancy has to have stability. No individual rights can be unbounded, including free speech and freedom of the press.

We place limits on government and transparency, but place no limits on social media and the press, no transparency, no responsibility for consequences. Yet they have far more influence than government

 

[bilby]

If you tell lies in order to gain a financial advantage, that's not free speech, it's fraud.

If you tell lies to gain political advantage, is that free speech? Why?

 

[Elixir]

Because Thomas, Alito & Co.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you tell lies in order to gain a financial advantage, that's not free speech, it's fraud.

If you tell lies to gain political advantage, is that free speech? Why?

I would expect it is fraud. Granted if we're talking fraud, I broadly think that X and Meta are doing some fucked up stuff. I think people sold something of themselves away, their "privacy" perhaps for lack of a better and more defined thing. They did it a long time ago, in thumbing the scales of moderation with bias and doing nothing about the Nazis and literal mobsters.

It's not a new problem. Pulitzer and Hearst were using media to generate propaganda, then called "yellow journalism" to achieve dishonest political goals over a century ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you tell lies in order to gain a financial advantage, that's not free speech, it's fraud.

If you tell lies to gain political advantage, is that free speech? Why?

It should be considered fraud. The problem is with proving it's a lie rather than simply wrong.

 

[Elixir]

If you tell lies in order to gain a financial advantage, that's not free speech, it's fraud.

If you tell lies to gain political advantage, is that free speech? Why?

It should be considered fraud. The problem is with proving it's a lie rather than simply wrong.

That is why cheato doubles down hard on those lies that are most likely to cause harm and possible liability.
Pretending to believe them, absolves him of any culpability for whatever happens, like if a group of armed thugs happens to go to the Capitol and fights like hell costing over $ 2 BILLION in damage, killing several people and wounding over 140 LE officers while trying to halt certification of a free and fair election.