3 ms·
> Censorship by private corporations and government is not the answer. You yourself complain about lack of reporting about an issue, lack of truth, and then yo
by tombone12 10y ago
> Censorship by private corporations and government is not the answer.
You yourself complain about lack of reporting about an issue, lack of truth, and then you go on to celebrate the spreading of lies? Fake news are basically just lies so opposing them is to spread truths, and to call efforts to spread truth "censorship" is 1984 logic.
Also, as I'm sure others will point out, FB and google already arbitrarily restrict content on their platforms so there is nothing "unprecedented" about it. There really isn't much of a case that filtering fake news is different banning from Simpsons clips or music remixes.
- wallace_f 10y agoI think the words you are looking for are Double Speak when you refer to "1984 logic." Anyways, the fact that there will be people who might say something stupid is not reason to further restrict the right to free speech. You can actually use that as a litmus test for free speech: There will always be stupid, awful, and racist people, and if they don't exist you know they lost their right to free speech. I'd rather be free from tyranny than have a few bad apples--either way we're going to have the bad apples anyways. It is actually unprecedented. Clips from the Simpsons being banned may have been banned on broadcast TV, but it does not mean someone could not upload that clip to Youtube (you do get the point, don't go into some strawman argument about copyright laws).