3 ms·

I have no idea what the man's reasons are, but supporting a ban on TikTok isn't necessarily against the first amendment. TikTok is a fountain of hot garbage. I

I have no idea what the man's reasons are, but supporting a ban on TikTok isn't necessarily against the first amendment. TikTok is a fountain of hot garbage. It drowns out legitimate speech for algorithmically driven propaganda and memes. TikTok is to free speech what waterboarding is to hydration.

krapp 2y ago
Hot garbage, algorithmically driven propaganda and memes are all protected by the First Amendment.
- Tao3300 2y ago
  A rule that undermines itself is a very stupid rule; or in the case of the Constitution, a very stupid interpretation.
  - krapp 2y ago
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Change the Constitution then. If we have to tolerate spree killers and school shooters because the founding fathers wanted to make sure plantation owners could put slave revolts down, then we have to put up with flat earthers and memes on the internet because the First Amendment was written when speech never traveled faster than horseback, at a time when only the speech of rich white Christian men ever made it into print to begin with. It would be nice to not have to deal with the negative externalities and technical debt that comes with being wedded to a 200 year old document written by a pre-industrial society that still believed in witches and vampires and killing the "savage Indian," but it is what it is. Government is not allowed to police speech, full stop. It still does, but in some very limited and generally universally agreed upon ways (such as having laws against libel and slander, or labeling laws regulated by the FDA, or the FCC regulating the broadcast spectrum.) But having the government regulate social media because of the quality or nature of speech would obviously be beyond the pale.
    - Tao3300 2y ago
      Or, you know, interpret it in a way that actually makes sense in the time we live in, like we always have.
      - krapp 2y ago
        No can do. The majority of justices on the Supreme Court were hand selected by the Federalist Society specifically to prevent that, and they have the rest of their lives to exercise their absolute and uncheckable power towards that end.
      - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
        Exactly. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right to own biological or nuclear weapons despite the fact that they’re obviously “arms”. The First Amendment has for a long time been regarded as being subject to reasonable limitation. This new wave of extremist interpretation is alarming and counterproductive to a civil society. Unfortunately the judiciary has been overrun by an infestation of staunch originalists clinging to literal textual interpretation that would only work centuries ago.

krapp 2y ago

Hot garbage, algorithmically driven propaganda and memes are all protected by the First Amendment.

Tao3300 2y ago
A rule that undermines itself is a very stupid rule; or in the case of the Constitution, a very stupid interpretation.
- krapp 2y ago
  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Change the Constitution then. If we have to tolerate spree killers and school shooters because the founding fathers wanted to make sure plantation owners could put slave revolts down, then we have to put up with flat earthers and memes on the internet because the First Amendment was written when speech never traveled faster than horseback, at a time when only the speech of rich white Christian men ever made it into print to begin with. It would be nice to not have to deal with the negative externalities and technical debt that comes with being wedded to a 200 year old document written by a pre-industrial society that still believed in witches and vampires and killing the "savage Indian," but it is what it is. Government is not allowed to police speech, full stop. It still does, but in some very limited and generally universally agreed upon ways (such as having laws against libel and slander, or labeling laws regulated by the FDA, or the FCC regulating the broadcast spectrum.) But having the government regulate social media because of the quality or nature of speech would obviously be beyond the pale.
  - Tao3300 2y ago
    Or, you know, interpret it in a way that actually makes sense in the time we live in, like we always have.
    - krapp 2y ago
      No can do. The majority of justices on the Supreme Court were hand selected by the Federalist Society specifically to prevent that, and they have the rest of their lives to exercise their absolute and uncheckable power towards that end.
    - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
      Exactly. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right to own biological or nuclear weapons despite the fact that they’re obviously “arms”. The First Amendment has for a long time been regarded as being subject to reasonable limitation. This new wave of extremist interpretation is alarming and counterproductive to a civil society. Unfortunately the judiciary has been overrun by an infestation of staunch originalists clinging to literal textual interpretation that would only work centuries ago.