LogFAQs > #911280656

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The Synagogue Shooter once again exposes the danger of unchecked social media
TiamatLover 10/27/18 6:00:05 PM #22:	BeantownHero posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... BeantownHero posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... BeantownHero posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... every major social media site, like twitter or facebook or etc, creates echo chambers for the far right and the far left. and these echo chambers attract crazies who then become even crazier. twitter gets slammed repeatedly for how it handles hate accounts on its website. Facebook should also be held to the fire. the problem is that it's hard to enforce such legislation because then the power of who defines what is a "hate group" rests in either the hands of private interests or in the hands of government. neither scenario is good for freedom of speech. I dont believe absolute freedom of speech should be the end goal for any social media website tasked with hosting opinions. I'd be perfectly ok with Twitter/Facebook deciding not to cater to what they believe are extremists It definitely needs to be the goal, otherwise they're effectively choosing what speech is and isn't allowed. again, why is this inherently a bad thing? Twitter being predominantly liberal doesnt hurt free speech and more than Fox news being predominantly conservative. neither should be obligated to host views it disagrees with Fox is a platform for its staff. Twitter is a platform for the whole world. They're not remotely comparable. A fair comparison would be "what's wrong with CNN being liberal, if Fox is conservative". --- https://imgtc.com/i/0mboxsZ.png ^ Tiamat is best babe, if you disagree you're objectively wrong. <cite>TiamatLover posted [p:911280656] in The Synago... [t:77138953]...</cite> <quote><cite>BeantownHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BeantownHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BeantownHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>every major social media site, like twitter or facebook or etc, creates echo chambers for the far right and the far left. and these echo chambers attract crazies who then become even crazier.</quote> twitter gets slammed repeatedly for how it handles hate accounts on its website. Facebook should also be held to the fire.</quote> the problem is that it's hard to enforce such legislation because then the power of who defines what is a "hate group" rests in either the hands of private interests or in the hands of government. neither scenario is good for freedom of speech.</quote> I dont believe absolute freedom of speech should be the end goal for any social media website tasked with hosting opinions. I'd be perfectly ok with Twitter/Facebook deciding not to cater to what they believe are extremists</quote> It definitely needs to be the goal, otherwise they're effectively choosing what speech is and isn't allowed.</quote> again, why is this inherently a bad thing? Twitter being predominantly liberal doesnt hurt free speech and more than Fox news being predominantly conservative. neither should be obligated to host views it disagrees with</quote> Fox is a platform for its staff. Twitter is a platform for the whole world. They're not remotely comparable. A fair comparison would be "what's wrong with CNN being liberal, if Fox is conservative". --- https://imgtc.com/i/0mboxsZ.png ^ Tiamat is best babe, if you disagree you're objectively wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1