4 ms·

> when the government is constantly defunded more power is handed to private corporations. Defunded? Please correct me I'm wrong, but I think that the overall

> when the government is constantly defunded more power is handed to private corporations. Defunded? Please correct me I'm wrong, but I think that the overall Federal Budget has risen dramatically in this time period.

munk-a 5y ago
You're correct - but that funding is being more concentrated in certain segments of the government and national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of. Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  > national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of You're talking about desiring a government run video host? In theory, it's an interesting concept. But what happens when somebody starts posting objectionable, but still legal, content and one group or another starts screaming about blocking it? Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. > Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money. Please fact-check me on this, but I believe that wars are handled by separate spending bills.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. Luckily when it’s done by the government, that’s actually unconstitutional and you have a recourse. When it’s done by a private company, you have none.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Yea - as mentioned by the sibling comment if a government platform tried to censor you then your first amendment rights actually are being impinged (unlike how it is with a private company which owes you no right to expression). There would be some leeway for the government to censor content that was outright dangerous but honestly a federal judge would probably refuse to hold up any bans on flat earther or climate change denial content. While both of those topics are mildly harmful to society they likely wouldn't be immediate enough for a judge. If you want free and open communication you want the government to have a (visible!) hand in it.

munk-a 5y ago

You're correct - but that funding is being more concentrated in certain segments of the government and national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of. Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money.

logicalmonster 5y ago
> national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of You're talking about desiring a government run video host? In theory, it's an interesting concept. But what happens when somebody starts posting objectionable, but still legal, content and one group or another starts screaming about blocking it? Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. > Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money. Please fact-check me on this, but I believe that wars are handled by separate spending bills.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. Luckily when it’s done by the government, that’s actually unconstitutional and you have a recourse. When it’s done by a private company, you have none.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Yea - as mentioned by the sibling comment if a government platform tried to censor you then your first amendment rights actually are being impinged (unlike how it is with a private company which owes you no right to expression). There would be some leeway for the government to censor content that was outright dangerous but honestly a federal judge would probably refuse to hold up any bans on flat earther or climate change denial content. While both of those topics are mildly harmful to society they likely wouldn't be immediate enough for a judge. If you want free and open communication you want the government to have a (visible!) hand in it.