4 ms·

The reason I am against government intervention is the fact that governments seem to not be competent enough to solve problems like this and they would use cont

The reason I am against government intervention is the fact that governments seem to not be competent enough to solve problems like this and they would use content controls for their own purposes. It is vastly different and more complex than regulating saws. The comparison falls short by a huge margin and a false conclusion that any federal legislation would be desirable just because it is the case for saws. Some suggest it would be the "hate" on the net that is causing the issues and we see legislation that penalizes some content already, but I heavily doubt it to be the source of any problem. Might be something similar, perhaps the strong indignations some statements on the net seem to get to some people, although these can be as politely stated as any frivolous statement can be. And the resulting expectations on opinions you are allowed to harbor.

unclebucknasty 3y ago
Irrespective of where people fall on this particular issue, I find it odd how the people who are so distrustful of government would allow things that are overtly dangerous, as long as it prevents government from...governing. It's like we have this generation of people who believe government overreach is a) inevitably the outcome in every scenario; b) present in every situation; c) always the worst possible thing that could happen. As in, literally worse than mass sickness and death.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Not only that, but they assume that corporations, free of government regulation, will simply act in everyone’s best interest, with responsibility and accountability. At least in theory, my government representatives are accountable to me. To whom is Facebook accountable?
  - unclebucknasty 3y ago
    Exactly. People who want to disempower democratic government are just disempowering themselves. But, they seem to think the power held by the government would simply evaporate. They don't realize it's really a question of who will rule over them, and whether there's any chance it will be themselves. Sure, our democracy has been crippled, but the solution is to fix it, not dismantle it. And ironically the people who are crippling it (Citizens United, lobbying, regulatory capture, etc) are the same who would rule over us if it were completely abolished. That is, essentially, their project.
    - pas 3y ago
      They feel that the government is a singular hivemind whereas FB/TikTok/Instagram/Reddit/etc offers the illusion of choice. (And how wonderful it is to feel some control! You can pick the content you want, who to follow, vote on content, comment, post! The friendly algorithm is just recommending things, it's helping!)
sloowm 3y ago
The government is never a passive actor. So non-intervention is also active policy. You can only choose what the policy is. The active policy for the last 15 years has been to consolidate a social media oligopoly with very few restrictions. Users are being tracked, advertisement laws are being skirted and are less restrictive than in other mediums, data is being sold, dark patterns are used to keep people from making their own choices. The algorithms are actively promoting bad content because the social media companies are not held liable for their part in promoting false content.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Depending on where you live it is not true that there are no restrictions on false advertising and accountability for commercial content. That said, a government can be passive and not regulate a field and non-intervention stays non-intervention, be it conscious or not. But that is besides the point. A government that tries to regulate all aspects of life is usually connected to totalitarianism, an that isn't only a libertarian position.

unclebucknasty 3y ago

Irrespective of where people fall on this particular issue, I find it odd how the people who are so distrustful of government would allow things that are overtly dangerous, as long as it prevents government from...governing. It's like we have this generation of people who believe government overreach is a) inevitably the outcome in every scenario; b) present in every situation; c) always the worst possible thing that could happen. As in, literally worse than mass sickness and death.

ryandrake 3y ago
Not only that, but they assume that corporations, free of government regulation, will simply act in everyone’s best interest, with responsibility and accountability. At least in theory, my government representatives are accountable to me. To whom is Facebook accountable?
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  Exactly. People who want to disempower democratic government are just disempowering themselves. But, they seem to think the power held by the government would simply evaporate. They don't realize it's really a question of who will rule over them, and whether there's any chance it will be themselves. Sure, our democracy has been crippled, but the solution is to fix it, not dismantle it. And ironically the people who are crippling it (Citizens United, lobbying, regulatory capture, etc) are the same who would rule over us if it were completely abolished. That is, essentially, their project.
  - pas 3y ago
    They feel that the government is a singular hivemind whereas FB/TikTok/Instagram/Reddit/etc offers the illusion of choice. (And how wonderful it is to feel some control! You can pick the content you want, who to follow, vote on content, comment, post! The friendly algorithm is just recommending things, it's helping!)

sloowm 3y ago

The government is never a passive actor. So non-intervention is also active policy. You can only choose what the policy is. The active policy for the last 15 years has been to consolidate a social media oligopoly with very few restrictions. Users are being tracked, advertisement laws are being skirted and are less restrictive than in other mediums, data is being sold, dark patterns are used to keep people from making their own choices. The algorithms are actively promoting bad content because the social media companies are not held liable for their part in promoting false content.

raxxorraxor 3y ago
Depending on where you live it is not true that there are no restrictions on false advertising and accountability for commercial content. That said, a government can be passive and not regulate a field and non-intervention stays non-intervention, be it conscious or not. But that is besides the point. A government that tries to regulate all aspects of life is usually connected to totalitarianism, an that isn't only a libertarian position.