7 ms·
100% agree with florida here, would be huge for me
by eddof13 4y ago
100% agree with florida here, would be huge for me
- ceejayoz 4y agoWhy would this be huge for you?
- brink 4y agoProbably because his ideas and opinions are actively censored. It's no secret that social media has a heavy bias.
- fallenasleep 4y agoboth sides think "social media" is biased against them; I honestly could not guess which way you think the bias goes
- pessimizer 4y agoThey're biased against something, because they delete legal content.
- nrb 4y agoWho cares that it’s legal though? You’re on their property, committed to abiding by their terms of service even. If you’re hosting a garden party and one of the guests has become disruptive to everyone else, are you not allowed to demand they cease their behavior or leave your property just because their angry ranting is not illegal speech? You’re totally within your right to say “I’m out, this party sucks anyway, you guys don’t want to have honest debate” but it’s a little absurd to force the property owner to allow you to stick around when you are no longer welcome.
- pessimizer 4y agoDo you feel the same way about telephones? How about electricity? Is it out of the realm of possibility that a conscientious electrical supplier might not want to power a racist's computer?
- nrb 4y agoElectricity is analogous to the the road that you traveled on to the way to the party. > Is it out of the realm of possibility that a conscientious electrical supplier might not want to power a racist's computer? Isn’t this the case that these same people are making for why ISPs should NOT be neutral, even though they’re much more like electricity and roads than private garden parties?
- honkler 4y ago
- cowtools 4y agoIf you don't like it, just build your own state. smh.
- epakai 4y agoThis is a first amendment violation. It should be obvious how the state differs from corporate entities or persons.
- ladyattis 4y agoActually, Florida doesn't own the property of the private citizens whether its the network fiber, routers, or buildings which contain these items. If you can't justify such a capricious law then maybe your intention is malicious?
- luckylion 4y agoAnd both Ukraine and Russia say they are being attacked. I think there is real bias (and in the West it's more biased against conservatives and some minority groups while it's different elsewhere, depends mostly on the dominant ideology) and there's faux discrimination to get victim points to trade in for control.
- eddof13 4y agoit aligns with my values on free speech and I think social media platforms should be common carriers and be forced to allow all free speech (aside from fire in a crowded theater)
- triceratops 4y agoEnjoy the deluge of spam
- kelseyfrog 4y agoAs a post-social media accelerationalist, the utter chaos that would result in social media platforms' inability to combat spam would devolve into the inability to exist at all and should be welcomed. Social media's negative externality is our individual mental health. One of the greatest things we could do for our mental health would be a complete and utter implosion of uncensorable social media. It cannot come soon enough.
- cowtools 4y agoI didn't read this whole thing but I agree it would be pretty funny if social media was legally forced to host spam
- triceratops 4y agoI mostly hate social media. But we'd also lose useful things. Such as the discussion board we're currently on. Or the treasure trove of educational and funny content on YouTube. Watching puppy videos is amazing for my mental health. It would be a shame for it to be drowned in spam.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoIt would honestly be better for me if social media categorically ceased to exist. Before anyone responds with, "You could choose not to participate," what I mean is that if they ceased to exist it would increase the supply of the attention and time of others. When I'm competing in time and attention for others with the likes FB/IG/TT I'm simply at the loosing end. I don't have a team of PhDs whose goal it is to increase people's engagement with me - they do. If I have to compete at all, I'd much rather compete with other people - not against professionals.
- acomjean 4y agoI guess you’d support no more downvoting or flagging post here either.
- eddof13 4y agofine with downvoting, just no banning or censoring for unpopular opinions
- acomjean 4y agoI’m not sure how that would work. Isn’t enough downvotes the same a censoring as the site isn’t letting your opinion be heard. Dang won’t be able to step in and maintain order. Spam couldn’t be disallowed.
- sixstringtheory 4y agoPeople don't usually get banned for their opinions. They get banned for being jerks. Try enabling showdead. There are some accounts marked as [dead] that I don't get, but the vast, vast majority of flagkilled posts and banned accounts I've seen don't deserve the product of someone else's labor to propagate their speech.
- smaryjerry 4y agoThis is idealistic thinking however there are countless cases where a ban was done by a bad actor or bad algorithm, with the only recourse being a user taking their ban to another platform to complain, and if they gain enough traction on another platform then they get the ban reversed. Unfortunately that only works for large creators while small creators have zero recourse for unjust bans.
- ladyattis 4y agoSo you believe that a website should be regulated in how it manages user access? So if I have a forum for betta fish owners and I don't want spammers or trolls then I must justify my bans to some bureaucrat in DC or the state capital? Seriously, this is why I don't buy there's any good faith behind these laws.
- pfisch 4y agoIf you want to post on 4chan, go post on 4chan. Don't turn the rest of the internet into 4chan so you can force gross ideas and content onto everyone else.
- eddof13 4y agowe should put speed limiters on cars so they can't go faster than 5 mph and endanger someone else
- pfisch 4y agoAre you describing speed limits on roads?
- triceratops 4y agoCars run on public roads. On the other hand if you said that only speed-limited cars are allowed on your property, you would be entirely in the right.
- sixstringtheory 4y agoHyperbole aside, I've ridden in supercars that are equipped with speed limiters in order to be able to drive on public roads legally in the US.
- silisili 4y agoWhat law prevents fast cars in the US? The Tesla roadster claims 250MPH, and there are others street legal up to 300 afaik.
- sixstringtheory 4y agoI must have misremembered, it looks like the cars came from the factory with speed limiters installed. Sorry for the mixup but this actually is a good point to consider, this is a platform moderating as it sees fit, according to their observations on when handling becomes less capable at speed. What Florida wants to do is the equivalent of telling carmakers they cannot put speed limiters on their cars, putting more people in danger. If I want my children to have speed limiters in the cars they drive, well, guess I’d be out of luck! It goes the other way too: it could also be used to force all carmakers to install speed limiters, and never let people even race at a track. As the original commenter I replied to tried to use as a point against the idea. The problem with the way they framed it is they tried to make it seem like allowing platforms to moderate as they see fit removes everyone’s choice, which is the opposite of the outcome.