4 ms·
But at the same time, politicians using social media to continuously publish blatant lies is also not a mechanism for stable government. In the past, this was
by brk 4y ago
But at the same time, politicians using social media to continuously publish blatant lies is also not a mechanism for stable government. In the past, this was regulated to a large degree by traditional media outlets being a filter of sorts and not just printing any random direct statement made by a politician.
I think there is a balance between "social media must not interfere with blatantly false statements from politicians" and "social media can ban their political detractors without consequence". The ideal reality would be the public actually holding politicians responsible for being deceptive or treasonous, but that does not appear to be on the horizon either.
- pessimizer 4y ago> politicians using social media to continuously publish blatant lies is also not a mechanism for stable government. The solution being proposed is to allow administrations to keep pushing narratives that support the regime. You can't consider yourself a defender of the population against politicians while also granting them the power to suppress speech through proxies. When you find yourself favorably referring to mainstream media in the past for their ability to control the speech of elected officials, you're spiraling towards Zimbabwe.
- caf 4y ago"through proxies" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The alternative being suggested here seems to be to allow the regime to compel media outlet to publish their propaganda, because some don't like media outlets being able to choose the views they promote.