5 ms·

I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens.

I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those views also tend to believe that "private companies" hold absolute authority over what goes on in their "property"). But if you believe inciting violence and other kinds of things should be punished by law, then you can hardly disagree with this.

makeworld 6y ago
I feel the same way. It's a bad world we live in where tech companies have to moderate the speech of everyone, but until we're out of that situation (thanks to decentralization), then reducing hate and speech that causes harm is the right move.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  I don’t think this is a problem caused by centralization. As I think about the past 4 years I think the blame lies with Congress, whom have effectively gridlocked themselves into inaction for the last decade. The powers that they have have already been spilling into other branches (such as using the courts to audaciously overturn laws) so it makes sense that those powers are spilling into the private sector as well. In other words, the less Congress does, the more easily corporations turn into an authoritarian arm of the government
dionian 6y ago
If there had been direct calls to violence, I would agree with you 100%
finder83 6y ago
Do you have examples of the direct calls to violence and insurrection? Supposedly there were three tweets that Twitter required trump to delete, but I don't see the actual text of them anywhere.
- simias 6y ago
  I had one screenshot before it was taken down because I couldn't believe what I was reading: https://svkt.org/~simias/up/20210107-164543_trump.png https://svkt.org/~simias/up/20210107-164543_trump.png
- b-etran 6y ago
  Here's the transcript of the deleted video statemenet: "I know your pain. Your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us. From me, from you and from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So, go home, we love you, you’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You’ve seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace." Deleted tweets: "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
  - q3 6y ago
    So the deleted video contained the usual claim of the election being "fraudulent", and these imperatives: "But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. ... We have to have peace. So, go home, we love you, you’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You’ve seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace." Why exactly was it deleted?
  - deleted 6y ago
q3 6y ago
>direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Did Trump really call for violence? Are those tweets still accessible somewhere? (Serious question, I did not follow his account.)
- mechnesium 6y ago
  No, all he said was: "Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Protest is protected by the first amendment.
  - hundchenkatze 6y ago
    What happened was NOT a protest.
    - cbradford 6y ago
      As CNN would say.. Fiery but mostly peaceful protest
      - irateswami 6y ago
        They should've just declared an autonomous zone and solidarity w/BLM, the media would've loved them.
    - mechnesium 6y ago
      Regardless of what the media is labeling the events on January 6th, the people involved were acting of their own free will. Trump has no culpability for the actions of his supporters.
      - lovecg 6y ago
        Honest question, by that logic, do you think Charles Manson was wrongly imprisoned?
    - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
gpm 6y ago
I don't quite disagree with this, but I'm willing to defend those who do because a slightly different weighting in my priorities would make my disagree. Inciting violence should be punished by the law, not by Facebook. For regular people it makes sense to outsource some of this to Facebook, to minimize the load on the legal system. POTUS however is one very high profile person. His statements are not being missed by those who have the authority to enforce the law. There is public debate ongoing over what should be done. Facebook should not need to help out here. Of course, as a result of an ubstroctionist attorney general (the baseless memo protecting the president from prosecution) and Senate (refusing to convict for political reasons) Facebook might actually be the best practical route, but them having to take that roll is actively damaging to society.
- anonunivgrad 6y ago
  Trump did not incite violence. If anything, the media this summer was much more involved in inciting and fueling the BLM riots.
  - Thaxll 6y ago
    Yes he did, just watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBH7ql34Ex0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBH7ql34Ex0 it's just lies and pushing people to do terrible things. Trump is currently the most dangerous American alive, he's the most powerful person on the planet spreading lies over lies to his millions of followers.
    - goostavos 6y ago
      Was it the "I know everyone is getting ready to march over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" part...? Or was it the tweets? "Go home with love & in peace."(now deleted) https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ Maybe this one? "am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!" Or this video telling everyone to they they lost, and to pick up their toys and head home peacefully. https://mobile.twitter.com/tom2badcat/status/1347015353390522368 https://mobile.twitter.com/tom2badcat/status/134701535339052... Am I in a media bubble? Where's the smoking gun of him inciting violence and trying to prevent a peaceful transition of power? As far as I can tell, the only real source calling for violence has been the users on thedonald.win, which has caused the mods to step in and say that they will follow the Presidents call for peace and thus not allow the platform to contain calls for violence (https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqC6sa/mods-are-compromised/ https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqC6sa/mods-are-compromised/)
mechnesium 6y ago
> if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? Are you suggesting that Trump made direct calls to violence and to insurrection? If so, that is patently false. From Trump's actual Tweet on December 19th: "... Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" All he did was call upon his base of supporters to exert their first amendment right to assemble. To suggest this was anything more than that is pure confabulation.
- mrlala 6y ago
  Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. Even Bill Barr just came out >Former Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that President Donald Trump inciting a violent insurrection on Capitol Hill the previous day was a "betrayal of his office and supporters." https://www.businessinsider.com/former-ag-barr-trump-betrayed-office-by-inciting-violent-mob-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/former-ag-barr-trump-betraye... But go ahead and hide behind "well he never ACTUALLY said it!!"
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    Quote the wording you think Trump used to organize an insurrection. Juxtapose that with the wording you would be okay with him using to organize a protest. Then try to tell me that the difference between them is "insurrection".
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      As of 2:00 PM yesterday, the underlying context that several of his supporters are ready, willing, and able to commit sedition in his name is painfully obvious and to deny it would be willful ignorance. After all, they were in the act of committing it [1]. The statements that Trump made would almost unquestionably meet the Brandenburg v Ohio bar of incitement to "imminent lawless action" given that context, urging his supporters (some of whom, given the context, would be willing to commit a felony) to march to Congress to--I don't recall the exact wording--tell them what they think. If Trump gave that speech this morning, with full knowledge of what transpired, you would have a strong case that he incited to "imminent lawless action." However, that key context isn't necessarily present yesterday morning when Trump actually gave his speech. You can make a case that a reasonable person should have known that a portion of the crowd would react in "imminent lawless action" (which would meet the bar). Likely, the courts would have judged that it's just "politicians saying things they don't mean" and dismissed it on the side of caution. However, the knowledge that imminent lawless action did occur as a result may persuade some people that a reasonable person really should have been able to predict this outcome, and thus that the speech actually meets the bar for incitement. It definitely is not a slam-dunk violation, but the fact that it isn't slam-dunk clear really should give you pause. [1] 18 USC §2384 is the statutory definition of sedition. The mob yesterday meets all elements: "two or more persons" who "conspire[d]" to "by force" "delay the execution of any law of the United States." It isn't hyperbole to say that their act was sedition, it was literally sedition yesterday.
qeternity 6y ago
Any real free speech maximalist would first and foremost recognize Facebook's right to free speech. Suspending Trump is merely that right. The 1st amendment is between citizens and the government, not between other citizens.
- zoobab 6y ago
  Next version of "social networks" will be technically uncensorable. Law makers, courts, or Mr Suckerberg will be powerless.
duxup 6y ago
I feel similarly. I'm traditional pretty nervous about these platforms taking action. Yet at the same time its' hard to balance the idea that I want people to have as much free speech on these platforms... and at the same time support the use of these platforms to push anti democratic / misinformation / and actions that would seem to lead to ... other people's rights being infringed and curtailed.
cbradford 6y ago
Private companies have no more right to discriminate based on thoughts and ideas than a hotel or restaurant can based on race. These businesses are places of public accommodation and cannot discriminate. And we can dispense with the "calls to violence" argument, which has been the democrat party platform since 2016.
djsumdog 6y ago
> direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Why do you believe this? The very last message Trump put out was telling people to go home. I've covered both BLM and Trump reallies and I've always felt safer at every Trump protest than at BLM. Even in the case of yesterday, we're seeing clear media manipulation. No one is covering how Trump supporters were let in; how Capitol Police lowered barricades. Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at protecting one of the most secure buildings in the US, or they let this happen. There are videos of people taking selfies with capital police and patting them on the shoulder, thanking them for their service inside the building! > But if you believe inciting violence and other kinds of things should be punished by law, then you can hardly disagree with this. YES! Lets' arrest every single person who burned and looted a building during the BLM protests and put them all in jail! Every last one. Same with the people who went in to the Cap building and stole things. Those are federal crimes; that will get you 3 ~ 8 years! I'm for that too. Oh and that Federal Guard that shot the Air Force woman, he certainly needs to go to jail. Only some of those things will happen. Pay attention to which ones.
- pqhwan 6y ago
  > Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at protecting one of the most secure buildings in the US, or they let this happen. So that must be what all the pictures of wall-climbing and drawn glocks are all about. </s>
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    The total and complete incompetence of the strongest and best equipped security force in the nation to defend one building? Why yes. Yes it is. They also shot an unarmed woman shooting wildly into a crowd for no god damn reason. That moron could have actually hit that other police officer too!
    - pqhwan 6y ago
      No, it’s a comment on your suggestion that the police let the insurrectionists in deliberately; I’m saying it’s wrong.
soneil 6y ago
(opinion) Allowing incitement as free speech only makes sense if you can/will hold them accountable for the results of their speech instead. It's either/or, but not neither/nor. If I say to you, "please shoot john smith", and you do - I should either be held responsible for saying thus, or accomplice in the result. I can't imagine anyone would claim I was without fault or responsibility. To my mind, free-speech maximalism should hold me innocent of saying it, but has no bearing on my being accomplice to the result.
captainmuon 6y ago
I'm neither a free-speach maximalist, not a Trump supporter - on the contrary, I would say I'm pretty far left-wing. And that is exactly why I feel pretty ambivalent about this. Because what if next time there is a BLM demonstration in front of the Capitol, or for any other progessive issue? What if things get worse here, and we need a democracy movement / "peaceful revolution" like in east Europe? Then I might find myself on the other side of the ban. I have the theory that we never really defeated fascism in western society. But mass media limited what you could say in public and so we kept a lid on it. Imagine someone disputing an election or calling for violence in the New York Times or on prime time TV. But with the internet and social media, this control function fell away. As a society we are realizing how problematic this can be and slowly reinstating the limitations that we had before the internet. This silences the violent, the racist, and the extreme right-wing-nuts, but it can also silence progressive ideas and marginalized voices if we are not careful. Right now we are moving to a situation where people like Trump cannot speak on the common public forum (putting the lid on them), but they can cause a lot of damage. I'd rather have the opposite situation, where they can rant as much as they want, but the society is so strong and principled that they cannot cause damage. But we are far from that, so I guess the pragmatic solution is to put the lid back on for now...
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "I guess the pragmatic solution is to put the lid back on for now... " I am not sure whether this solution is viable. People have drifted apart, there is a lot of general distrust in societies, I cannot see how this level of distrust can be mitigated. Whoever is on the receiving end of the "lid", will try to find another way of communication. There is a strong desire in humans not to be silenced. Without a desire to compare, my anecdote: I grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia; even though the state did its best to control communications among people, using outright force, they failed and everyone knew the latest gossip about the apparatchiks. Americans are probably not as competent in muzzling their opponents, plus openly disavowing the idea of free speech will make them internally unhappy. You yourself say that you'd rather have the opposite situation.

makeworld 6y ago

I feel the same way. It's a bad world we live in where tech companies have to moderate the speech of everyone, but until we're out of that situation (thanks to decentralization), then reducing hate and speech that causes harm is the right move.

nemothekid 6y ago
I don’t think this is a problem caused by centralization. As I think about the past 4 years I think the blame lies with Congress, whom have effectively gridlocked themselves into inaction for the last decade. The powers that they have have already been spilling into other branches (such as using the courts to audaciously overturn laws) so it makes sense that those powers are spilling into the private sector as well. In other words, the less Congress does, the more easily corporations turn into an authoritarian arm of the government

dionian 6y ago

If there had been direct calls to violence, I would agree with you 100%

finder83 6y ago

Do you have examples of the direct calls to violence and insurrection? Supposedly there were three tweets that Twitter required trump to delete, but I don't see the actual text of them anywhere.

simias 6y ago
I had one screenshot before it was taken down because I couldn't believe what I was reading: https://svkt.org/~simias/up/20210107-164543_trump.png https://svkt.org/~simias/up/20210107-164543_trump.png
b-etran 6y ago
Here's the transcript of the deleted video statemenet: "I know your pain. Your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us. From me, from you and from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So, go home, we love you, you’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You’ve seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace." Deleted tweets: "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
- q3 6y ago
  So the deleted video contained the usual claim of the election being "fraudulent", and these imperatives: "But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. ... We have to have peace. So, go home, we love you, you’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You’ve seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace." Why exactly was it deleted?
- deleted 6y ago

q3 6y ago

>direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Did Trump really call for violence? Are those tweets still accessible somewhere? (Serious question, I did not follow his account.)

mechnesium 6y ago
No, all he said was: "Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Protest is protected by the first amendment.
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  What happened was NOT a protest.
  - cbradford 6y ago
    As CNN would say.. Fiery but mostly peaceful protest
    - irateswami 6y ago
      They should've just declared an autonomous zone and solidarity w/BLM, the media would've loved them.
  - mechnesium 6y ago
    Regardless of what the media is labeling the events on January 6th, the people involved were acting of their own free will. Trump has no culpability for the actions of his supporters.
    - lovecg 6y ago
      Honest question, by that logic, do you think Charles Manson was wrongly imprisoned?
  - txsoftwaredev 6y ago

gpm 6y ago

I don't quite disagree with this, but I'm willing to defend those who do because a slightly different weighting in my priorities would make my disagree. Inciting violence should be punished by the law, not by Facebook. For regular people it makes sense to outsource some of this to Facebook, to minimize the load on the legal system. POTUS however is one very high profile person. His statements are not being missed by those who have the authority to enforce the law. There is public debate ongoing over what should be done. Facebook should not need to help out here. Of course, as a result of an ubstroctionist attorney general (the baseless memo protecting the president from prosecution) and Senate (refusing to convict for political reasons) Facebook might actually be the best practical route, but them having to take that roll is actively damaging to society.

anonunivgrad 6y ago
Trump did not incite violence. If anything, the media this summer was much more involved in inciting and fueling the BLM riots.
- Thaxll 6y ago
  Yes he did, just watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBH7ql34Ex0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBH7ql34Ex0 it's just lies and pushing people to do terrible things. Trump is currently the most dangerous American alive, he's the most powerful person on the planet spreading lies over lies to his millions of followers.
  - goostavos 6y ago
    Was it the "I know everyone is getting ready to march over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" part...? Or was it the tweets? "Go home with love & in peace."(now deleted) https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ Maybe this one? "am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!" Or this video telling everyone to they they lost, and to pick up their toys and head home peacefully. https://mobile.twitter.com/tom2badcat/status/1347015353390522368 https://mobile.twitter.com/tom2badcat/status/134701535339052... Am I in a media bubble? Where's the smoking gun of him inciting violence and trying to prevent a peaceful transition of power? As far as I can tell, the only real source calling for violence has been the users on thedonald.win, which has caused the mods to step in and say that they will follow the Presidents call for peace and thus not allow the platform to contain calls for violence (https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqC6sa/mods-are-compromised/ https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqC6sa/mods-are-compromised/)

mechnesium 6y ago

> if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? Are you suggesting that Trump made direct calls to violence and to insurrection? If so, that is patently false. From Trump's actual Tweet on December 19th: "... Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" All he did was call upon his base of supporters to exert their first amendment right to assemble. To suggest this was anything more than that is pure confabulation.

mrlala 6y ago
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. Even Bill Barr just came out >Former Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that President Donald Trump inciting a violent insurrection on Capitol Hill the previous day was a "betrayal of his office and supporters." https://www.businessinsider.com/former-ag-barr-trump-betrayed-office-by-inciting-violent-mob-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/former-ag-barr-trump-betraye... But go ahead and hide behind "well he never ACTUALLY said it!!"
- tetrometal 6y ago
  Quote the wording you think Trump used to organize an insurrection. Juxtapose that with the wording you would be okay with him using to organize a protest. Then try to tell me that the difference between them is "insurrection".
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    As of 2:00 PM yesterday, the underlying context that several of his supporters are ready, willing, and able to commit sedition in his name is painfully obvious and to deny it would be willful ignorance. After all, they were in the act of committing it [1]. The statements that Trump made would almost unquestionably meet the Brandenburg v Ohio bar of incitement to "imminent lawless action" given that context, urging his supporters (some of whom, given the context, would be willing to commit a felony) to march to Congress to--I don't recall the exact wording--tell them what they think. If Trump gave that speech this morning, with full knowledge of what transpired, you would have a strong case that he incited to "imminent lawless action." However, that key context isn't necessarily present yesterday morning when Trump actually gave his speech. You can make a case that a reasonable person should have known that a portion of the crowd would react in "imminent lawless action" (which would meet the bar). Likely, the courts would have judged that it's just "politicians saying things they don't mean" and dismissed it on the side of caution. However, the knowledge that imminent lawless action did occur as a result may persuade some people that a reasonable person really should have been able to predict this outcome, and thus that the speech actually meets the bar for incitement. It definitely is not a slam-dunk violation, but the fact that it isn't slam-dunk clear really should give you pause. [1] 18 USC §2384 is the statutory definition of sedition. The mob yesterday meets all elements: "two or more persons" who "conspire[d]" to "by force" "delay the execution of any law of the United States." It isn't hyperbole to say that their act was sedition, it was literally sedition yesterday.

qeternity 6y ago

Any real free speech maximalist would first and foremost recognize Facebook's right to free speech. Suspending Trump is merely that right. The 1st amendment is between citizens and the government, not between other citizens.

zoobab 6y ago
Next version of "social networks" will be technically uncensorable. Law makers, courts, or Mr Suckerberg will be powerless.

duxup 6y ago

I feel similarly. I'm traditional pretty nervous about these platforms taking action. Yet at the same time its' hard to balance the idea that I want people to have as much free speech on these platforms... and at the same time support the use of these platforms to push anti democratic / misinformation / and actions that would seem to lead to ... other people's rights being infringed and curtailed.

cbradford 6y ago

Private companies have no more right to discriminate based on thoughts and ideas than a hotel or restaurant can based on race. These businesses are places of public accommodation and cannot discriminate. And we can dispense with the "calls to violence" argument, which has been the democrat party platform since 2016.

djsumdog 6y ago

> direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Why do you believe this? The very last message Trump put out was telling people to go home. I've covered both BLM and Trump reallies and I've always felt safer at every Trump protest than at BLM. Even in the case of yesterday, we're seeing clear media manipulation. No one is covering how Trump supporters were let in; how Capitol Police lowered barricades. Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at protecting one of the most secure buildings in the US, or they let this happen. There are videos of people taking selfies with capital police and patting them on the shoulder, thanking them for their service inside the building! > But if you believe inciting violence and other kinds of things should be punished by law, then you can hardly disagree with this. YES! Lets' arrest every single person who burned and looted a building during the BLM protests and put them all in jail! Every last one. Same with the people who went in to the Cap building and stole things. Those are federal crimes; that will get you 3 ~ 8 years! I'm for that too. Oh and that Federal Guard that shot the Air Force woman, he certainly needs to go to jail. Only some of those things will happen. Pay attention to which ones.

pqhwan 6y ago
> Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at protecting one of the most secure buildings in the US, or they let this happen. So that must be what all the pictures of wall-climbing and drawn glocks are all about. </s>
- djsumdog 6y ago
  The total and complete incompetence of the strongest and best equipped security force in the nation to defend one building? Why yes. Yes it is. They also shot an unarmed woman shooting wildly into a crowd for no god damn reason. That moron could have actually hit that other police officer too!
  - pqhwan 6y ago
    No, it’s a comment on your suggestion that the police let the insurrectionists in deliberately; I’m saying it’s wrong.

soneil 6y ago

(opinion) Allowing incitement as free speech only makes sense if you can/will hold them accountable for the results of their speech instead. It's either/or, but not neither/nor. If I say to you, "please shoot john smith", and you do - I should either be held responsible for saying thus, or accomplice in the result. I can't imagine anyone would claim I was without fault or responsibility. To my mind, free-speech maximalism should hold me innocent of saying it, but has no bearing on my being accomplice to the result.

captainmuon 6y ago

I'm neither a free-speach maximalist, not a Trump supporter - on the contrary, I would say I'm pretty far left-wing. And that is exactly why I feel pretty ambivalent about this. Because what if next time there is a BLM demonstration in front of the Capitol, or for any other progessive issue? What if things get worse here, and we need a democracy movement / "peaceful revolution" like in east Europe? Then I might find myself on the other side of the ban. I have the theory that we never really defeated fascism in western society. But mass media limited what you could say in public and so we kept a lid on it. Imagine someone disputing an election or calling for violence in the New York Times or on prime time TV. But with the internet and social media, this control function fell away. As a society we are realizing how problematic this can be and slowly reinstating the limitations that we had before the internet. This silences the violent, the racist, and the extreme right-wing-nuts, but it can also silence progressive ideas and marginalized voices if we are not careful. Right now we are moving to a situation where people like Trump cannot speak on the common public forum (putting the lid on them), but they can cause a lot of damage. I'd rather have the opposite situation, where they can rant as much as they want, but the society is so strong and principled that they cannot cause damage. But we are far from that, so I guess the pragmatic solution is to put the lid back on for now...

inglor_cz 6y ago
"I guess the pragmatic solution is to put the lid back on for now... " I am not sure whether this solution is viable. People have drifted apart, there is a lot of general distrust in societies, I cannot see how this level of distrust can be mitigated. Whoever is on the receiving end of the "lid", will try to find another way of communication. There is a strong desire in humans not to be silenced. Without a desire to compare, my anecdote: I grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia; even though the state did its best to control communications among people, using outright force, they failed and everyone knew the latest gossip about the apparatchiks. Americans are probably not as competent in muzzling their opponents, plus openly disavowing the idea of free speech will make them internally unhappy. You yourself say that you'd rather have the opposite situation.