4 ms·

How about ... freedom of speech? Quit trying to micro manage everyone. Accept payment to publish messages on a competitive platform - and let readers, being m

How about ... freedom of speech? Quit trying to micro manage everyone. Accept payment to publish messages on a competitive platform - and let readers, being mostly competent adults, figure content out themselves.

0x8BADF00D 7y ago
I’d take it a step further and limit who is allowed to vote. You mention competent adults; an adult in 1800 was probably competent around 16 years of age. An adult today is similarly competent at a later age. Regardless of competency, there should be some eligibility requirements to vote. Holding a job should be one. Proof of citizenship should be another.
- tjr225 7y ago
  I very rarely downvote comments here as a matter of principle but yours here is almost comically absurd. 1. Do you have any evidence that people were more competent at a younger age in 1800? In fact I would think that the opposite is probably true - but again this seems impossible to prove so I'm simply asking you if you have any reason to believe what you're saying is true other than your feelings. 2. People without jobs have just as many rights as those with jobs. Do you also think people without land should not vote? Perhaps not women? Maybe black votes should have less of an impact? I'm curious if you're not American- maybe this would explain a cultural difference I am missing?
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  At least be consistent with the despicable point you are making! How does flipping burgers qualify you to have a say in how to run a country? Take away votes from the uneducated, the criminal, the insane, people with low IQ, and the tax dodging millionaires.
api_dolla 7y ago
The entire point is that more money doesn’t lead to disproportionately more speech. And if readers were ‘mostly competent’, and able to decipher the truth, we wouldn’t even be having this convo
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Deciphering truth is up to the individual. You don't get to declare yourself the authority thereon, empowered to control what others hear based on what you deem "truth". Strange how many purporting to wave the banner of "equality and diversity" want absolute control over others, rather than respect the natural sovereignty of the individual.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I am sorry but when has money not meaning more speech ever been true in practice? Even in Communist Dictatorships it didn't hold as those with power also had money effectively. Printing presses and distribution were expensive - even more so back in the day and before their invention it held - arguably even more so. It may be a good ideal for having ideas standing on their own weight but a precedent it is not.

0x8BADF00D 7y ago

I’d take it a step further and limit who is allowed to vote. You mention competent adults; an adult in 1800 was probably competent around 16 years of age. An adult today is similarly competent at a later age. Regardless of competency, there should be some eligibility requirements to vote. Holding a job should be one. Proof of citizenship should be another.

tjr225 7y ago
I very rarely downvote comments here as a matter of principle but yours here is almost comically absurd. 1. Do you have any evidence that people were more competent at a younger age in 1800? In fact I would think that the opposite is probably true - but again this seems impossible to prove so I'm simply asking you if you have any reason to believe what you're saying is true other than your feelings. 2. People without jobs have just as many rights as those with jobs. Do you also think people without land should not vote? Perhaps not women? Maybe black votes should have less of an impact? I'm curious if you're not American- maybe this would explain a cultural difference I am missing?
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
At least be consistent with the despicable point you are making! How does flipping burgers qualify you to have a say in how to run a country? Take away votes from the uneducated, the criminal, the insane, people with low IQ, and the tax dodging millionaires.

api_dolla 7y ago

The entire point is that more money doesn’t lead to disproportionately more speech. And if readers were ‘mostly competent’, and able to decipher the truth, we wouldn’t even be having this convo

ctdonath 7y ago
Deciphering truth is up to the individual. You don't get to declare yourself the authority thereon, empowered to control what others hear based on what you deem "truth". Strange how many purporting to wave the banner of "equality and diversity" want absolute control over others, rather than respect the natural sovereignty of the individual.
Nasrudith 7y ago
I am sorry but when has money not meaning more speech ever been true in practice? Even in Communist Dictatorships it didn't hold as those with power also had money effectively. Printing presses and distribution were expensive - even more so back in the day and before their invention it held - arguably even more so. It may be a good ideal for having ideas standing on their own weight but a precedent it is not.