3 ms·

What she wants is online editors for everyone. And she wants those editors to have some establishment pedigree Allowing them to edit is misrepresenting other

What she wants is online editors for everyone. And she wants those editors to have some establishment pedigree Allowing them to edit is misrepresenting other people's speech. Allowing them to delete is censorship. Allowing them to label is discriminatory. We already have the more sensible options and those are: Reply: The answer to free speech you don't like is more free speech Link and or quote: Again the answer to free speech you don't like is more free speech And this highlights the real goal, and that is to force others to pay attention to speakers she prefers they pay attention to. In other words, she wants to get in the way. She wants to get in the way because an awful lot of the speech she would prefer will not compete well with the speech she does not like and that is happening because those speakers have lied, omitted and manipulated, and those basic abuses cost them the public trust. [As it should, mind you.] That body of speakers also does not, in general, come from a point of view a very large portion of the population can identify with. Easy examples? Poor people Labor The sick and needy Etc... And like it or not, current economic policy has left us with a likely majority of the population who actually are poor, working labor, sick, needy. And flat out? The powers that be would just rather not talk about that, which lies at the root of this whole discussion. Clearly this is my take, but I find it very compelling, due to every one of these efforts to combat "misinformation" tends to take out speech aimed right at that which the powers that be would rather not be talked about.

ddingus 4y ago
By the way, let us take her Donald Trump example. He says a bunch of BS about elections being stolen. The easy thing to do is publish the facts and rebut him. Why does this not work? Decades of lies, manipulations basically acting as State Media has rendered the people who would publish facts not trusted anymore than Donald Trump is! OF FUCKING COURSE he gets traction! Nobody should be surprised! What this woman should be doing is forcing media to not lie, not manipulate and not be State Media to gain the trust and have the interests of the public properly discussed and represented in the dialog and in our body politic. But that would mean a lot of people having to own an awful lot they don't feel good about and that the public would hold them accountable for. So, we are gonna see these clowns censor, suppress and double down on avoiding issues while highlighting every war, boogie man, and shiny distraction there ever was so the games can continue. Pardon me for not being impressed and on board with any of this crap at all.

ddingus 4y ago

By the way, let us take her Donald Trump example. He says a bunch of BS about elections being stolen. The easy thing to do is publish the facts and rebut him. Why does this not work? Decades of lies, manipulations basically acting as State Media has rendered the people who would publish facts not trusted anymore than Donald Trump is! OF FUCKING COURSE he gets traction! Nobody should be surprised! What this woman should be doing is forcing media to not lie, not manipulate and not be State Media to gain the trust and have the interests of the public properly discussed and represented in the dialog and in our body politic. But that would mean a lot of people having to own an awful lot they don't feel good about and that the public would hold them accountable for. So, we are gonna see these clowns censor, suppress and double down on avoiding issues while highlighting every war, boogie man, and shiny distraction there ever was so the games can continue. Pardon me for not being impressed and on board with any of this crap at all.