2 ms·
The main point of the article is that the free speech laws in this country have clouded the divide between free speech for individuals, and the rights for media
by dagmx 6y ago
The main point of the article is that the free speech laws in this country have clouded the divide between free speech for individuals, and the rights for media companies and political parties to spread misinformation as they see fit.
What you're proposing in your last paragraph is what the article is proposing too. The issue is that under the guise of an absolutist take of free speech, we've now put all free speech under the same banner.
To apply protections to the categories of media would require rethinking what free speech means and who it applies to.
IMHO free speech is great. It just needs certain measures around transparency and corporate lobbying to prevent it being brought down with the bad actors
- zepto 6y agoI actually don’t see the article proposing what I am proposing. For the most part it is a good analysis, but I don’t see much about defining what ‘news’. The New York Times isn’t the fountain of garbage that Fox News can be, but neither is it any more principled. It’s just usually better. They have a vested interest in this being about social media rather than news, and the article focuses tech rather than news when it comes to solutions. I didn’t see where they addressed the issue of what to do about Fox News, for example.