|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines.
this is not a contradiction
|
On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time.
Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument.
|
On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument.
I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me.
|
On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me.
Well yeah, I agree that the government regulating speech on the internet is dumb. My own government has proved that a few times.
Imagine if someone like Trump was in charge of what you are and aren't allowed to say. Fuck that.
|
On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me.
Except the government temporarily halting J&J isn't about opinion.
|
On April 29 2021 20:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. Well yeah, I agree that the government regulating speech on the internet is dumb. My own government has proved that a few times. Imagine if someone like Trump was in charge of what you are and aren't allowed to say. Fuck that.
Anti-vax rhetoric is demonstrably impacting the world for the worse, with horrible diseases (like polio) that we had almost beat making a comeback. I would class it on the same level as inciting an armed insurrection on the capitol. I do believe this sort of thing should be regulated to some degree but the implementation would have to be really well thought out to prevent the situation where it can be used as a political instrument.
|
Considering that the mechanisms of US politics are so poorly thought out that something as fundamental as appointment of judges is not just a political instrument but a nakedly partisan political football, you'll excuse me for thinking the country should stay the hell away from regulating speech.
|
|
|
On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention.
Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that.
Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power.
|
On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power.
So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government?
|
On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government?
depends. threats, extortion etc. could be reported to the police to be investigated, but a comment on some random instagram girl's profile that says "lul youre a fat ugly whore" doesnt pass for something that should be moderated by the government.
instagram can moderate speech. tl can moderate speech. the government should be VERY careful about regulating any form of speech. users of any platform that opens themselves up to abuse should use the platforms at their own risk and take into consideration the fact that there will be people who say shit on the internet. asking for government intervention is a whole other level that could be far more disastrous than individuals having their feelings hurt by anonymous posters.
|
On April 29 2021 22:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government? depends. threats, extortion etc. could be reported to the police to be investigated, but a comment on some random instagram girl's profile that says "lul youre a fat ugly whore" doesnt pass for something that should be moderated by the government. instagram can moderate speech. tl can moderate speech. the government should be VERY careful about regulating any form of speech. users of any platform that opens themselves up to abuse should use the platforms at their own risk and take into consideration the fact that there will be people who say shit on the internet. asking for government intervention is a whole other level that could be far more disastrous than individuals having their feelings hurt by anonymous posters.
You’re using the word “threats” like it’s some bright line that users of online platforms can easily and readily acknowledge in submitting themselves to said platforms. Basically nothing about legal issues arising out of regulation of threats suggests that to be true, this stuff is incredibly murky no matter how the issues are presented, which is why I was curious about jock’s categorical take on government involvement in online speech.
|
On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government?
Hmm....
Not really.
If there's a pattern of harassment or stalking directed at an individual i would support police involvement.
My problem is more with telling people what they can or can't say outside of some of the more common sense stuff that also applies irl.
|
On April 29 2021 22:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government? Hmm.... Not really. If there's a pattern of harassment or stalking directed at an individual i would support police involvement. My problem is more with telling people what they can or can't say outside of some of the more common sense stuff that also applies irl.
Fair enough, that sounds more reasonable than what I had understood your point to be.
|
|
|
On April 29 2021 22:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 22:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit.
I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government? depends. threats, extortion etc. could be reported to the police to be investigated, but a comment on some random instagram girl's profile that says "lul youre a fat ugly whore" doesnt pass for something that should be moderated by the government. instagram can moderate speech. tl can moderate speech. the government should be VERY careful about regulating any form of speech. users of any platform that opens themselves up to abuse should use the platforms at their own risk and take into consideration the fact that there will be people who say shit on the internet. asking for government intervention is a whole other level that could be far more disastrous than individuals having their feelings hurt by anonymous posters. You’re using the word “threats” like it’s some bright line that users of online platforms can easily and readily acknowledge in submitting themselves to said platforms. Basically nothing about legal issues arising out of regulation of threats suggests that to be true, this stuff is incredibly murky no matter how the issues are presented, which is why I was curious about jock’s categorical take on government involvement in online speech.
well yeah that was my point as well. it would be impossible for government to create legislation that effectively determines when a line has been crossed, and if governments cant define clearly what theyre legislating then it shouldnt be done at all.
i agree with jock on what would be reportable to the police, although even that is vague.
|
On April 29 2021 18:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 16:22 Artisreal wrote:On April 29 2021 06:19 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 05:43 Artisreal wrote:
It' a big assumptio that FB will be let to self regulate.
I can imagine something ilke an independent panel from science, society, faith that develops moderation guidelines and oversees the implementation.
Ultimately some things like Trump winning the election, vaccines microchipping you and other malicious lies are rather easily detected.
However the connection between eat the rich and your idea of regulation came to be in your view, you might have to check twice whether it's not a fantasy of yours you wanna rage about. Do you not know that this is already happening? These tech companies are already purging things they deem to be untruthful or offensive and the criticism from my friends is that they should be doing even more. They aren't even doing a good job at it because it's probably largely automated. A few weeks ago an interview between 2 chess youtubers that I follow on youtube was deleted because it contained words like "white" "black" "attack." Hilarious. I also find it kind of odd that "faith" would be on your panel to regulate truthfulness on the internet. My bad, I should have clarified, that I mean regulation that follows a specific law. That these giants rely on algorithms for moderation to save money is no suprise, hence it's not gonna be anywhere close to adequate - imo - unless we have independent oversight of the process. I very much agree with your assessment. And I would include faith in the US because religious hate is one of the problems we have in these times and the US sees itself as a religious country, thus I would be detached from reality if I were to exclude such a strong stakeholder. Of course there's lots of misguided faith - according to my personal view - out there, but making some concessions for acceptance of some religious leaders is a gamble I'm willing to take I think, to not have them rally against the "war on free speech". I mean, it's free speech, you wont go to prison for it, it might just get deleted and you're banned on a private plattform on the internet because you spread conspiracy therories that actively disrupt society and disregard the life of thers. And as long as it's not classified as a utility, nobody is entiteld to have an account on facebook or twitter. I wouldn't call it a truthfullness panel :D It's main goal should be the curbing of malicious incitement of hate, violence and pejudice. I think I'd rather have Zuckerberg police speech on the internet than the government lol
I mean, in my view it's not the government.
We have a kind of public broadcast oversight commission here.
My father in law was a board member of a radio station as he was director of the local red cross.
As I said, individuals from science, society (that includes companies, NGOs), faith in an appropriate distribution - which as a foreigner can hardly name for the US - can be more neutral than a purely private or governmental oversight.
But to be honest that is something for smarter people with less engineering in them than me.
On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 19:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 10:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Far Right discussion channels don't change the fact that you need to get vaccinated, and that it's dangerous to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated. It's a wrong opinion. Get vaccinated. Are you aware that the FDA and CDC paused the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? That does more to legitimize the opinion that one should not get vaccinated more than any right wing nut on reddit. I can't tell if your post is just a random pro-vaccine spiel or if you were commenting on the broader discussion of cracking down on anti-vax rhetoric on the internet. If it was the latter than I hope you can see the contradiction in saying people shouldn't be allowed to say you shouldn't take the covid vaccine when the government was just saying that you shouldn't take one of the covid vaccines. There is absolutely no contradiction there. The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine. Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time.
No, it isn't.
|
|
|
Norway28706 Posts
On April 29 2021 23:06 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 22:41 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 19:40 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
There is absolutely no contradiction there.
The J&J vaccine was paused to examine some data, after which it was unpaused because its safe to take. That only does anything to legitimize the opinion that one shouldn't get vaccinated if one is a moron. It was about blood clots. It turns out you are more likely to die of a blood clot because you contracted covid, than you are from taking the vaccine.
Anti-vax is no different to those preachers who tell their people not to take their cancer meds because God will fix it for them. Absolute scum, especially the ones making $ from their anti-vax lies. Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government? depends. threats, extortion etc. could be reported to the police to be investigated, but a comment on some random instagram girl's profile that says "lul youre a fat ugly whore" doesnt pass for something that should be moderated by the government. instagram can moderate speech. tl can moderate speech. the government should be VERY careful about regulating any form of speech. users of any platform that opens themselves up to abuse should use the platforms at their own risk and take into consideration the fact that there will be people who say shit on the internet. asking for government intervention is a whole other level that could be far more disastrous than individuals having their feelings hurt by anonymous posters. You’re using the word “threats” like it’s some bright line that users of online platforms can easily and readily acknowledge in submitting themselves to said platforms. Basically nothing about legal issues arising out of regulation of threats suggests that to be true, this stuff is incredibly murky no matter how the issues are presented, which is why I was curious about jock’s categorical take on government involvement in online speech. well yeah that was my point as well. it would be impossible for government to create legislation that effectively determines when a line has been crossed, and if governments cant define clearly what theyre legislating then it shouldnt be done at all. i agree with jock on what would be reportable to the police, although even that is vague.
Lots of laws are somewhat arbitrary. That's unavoidable, and not a reason to avoid legislating something.
|
On April 29 2021 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2021 23:06 evilfatsh1t wrote:On April 29 2021 22:41 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On April 29 2021 22:28 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2021 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On April 29 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2021 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2021 20:13 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Pausing is fundamentally the same as saying "don't take this vaccine" for an indefinite period of time. Yes but in order to relate that to anti-vax you have to simplify both positions beyond the point where you are making a useful argument. I actually wasn't trying to relate it to anti-vax argument as much as I was making an argument for why regulating truthfulness on the internet is a dumb idea. If someone said you shouldn't take the J&J vaccine it would have been the so-called "wrong opinion." But then there was a period where it was the "correct opinion" before being the "wrong opinion" again. Thinking that the government should decide what the correct opinions are and then also be the one to enforce those correct opinions seems crazy to me. This is the problem with the abundance of caution approach that many scientists and doctors take. Since they are analytical people they think further testing and proving the safety will make the public feel safer. But instead the feelings over facts people make jumps to "the government is saying its not safe", or "see its damgerous". The AZ and JJ were paused to make sure they were safe, and they are. And yet the feelings exist that there was some contradiction and this means they are not safe or not as good. When the reason they were paused (which is not rejected) was to prove they are both, which happened. @ jock you would not want the regulation under political control just government. As much as people like to shit on beurocrats this is the perfect role for them as creating, following, enforcing rules is usually in their ball park. It would not be perfect or super efficient, but it wouldn't be politically driven and has worked mostly well, or at least a lot better than not regulated if or the news in countries that do it. Which is most democracies that are not the US. I'm sure after many growing pains the internet would be similar. There would be much bitching from the facebooks of the world since it would be expensive, but so be it, they are making billions and they would likely figure out how to do it as nessecity is the mother of invention. Its not only the political nature of it. The investigation of issues like vaccines falls under conspiracy theory, and the idea that citizens can't investigate conspiracy theory by law under threat of punishment is abhorrent to me. I'm probably in the minority in that. Also i have a bit of anarchist in me so the idea of regulating speech on the internet at all seems like an abuse of power. So in your ideal world, people can harass others via online speech acts without fear of any repercussions from government? depends. threats, extortion etc. could be reported to the police to be investigated, but a comment on some random instagram girl's profile that says "lul youre a fat ugly whore" doesnt pass for something that should be moderated by the government. instagram can moderate speech. tl can moderate speech. the government should be VERY careful about regulating any form of speech. users of any platform that opens themselves up to abuse should use the platforms at their own risk and take into consideration the fact that there will be people who say shit on the internet. asking for government intervention is a whole other level that could be far more disastrous than individuals having their feelings hurt by anonymous posters. You’re using the word “threats” like it’s some bright line that users of online platforms can easily and readily acknowledge in submitting themselves to said platforms. Basically nothing about legal issues arising out of regulation of threats suggests that to be true, this stuff is incredibly murky no matter how the issues are presented, which is why I was curious about jock’s categorical take on government involvement in online speech. well yeah that was my point as well. it would be impossible for government to create legislation that effectively determines when a line has been crossed, and if governments cant define clearly what theyre legislating then it shouldnt be done at all. i agree with jock on what would be reportable to the police, although even that is vague. Lots of laws are somewhat arbitrary. That's unavoidable, and not a reason to avoid legislating something.
saying it shouldnt be done at all was probably an exaggeration. however for this particular topic, when you risk something as fundamental as the freedom of speech then i would say my statement is still true. you cant attempt to write legislation to control one's speech and not be absolutely clear on what the limits are. if it gets too vague or grey, then it simply shouldnt be done and the onus should fall onto the individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
