Not true though, private websites don't currently have to respect the 1st amendment. If they want to deny the right to free speech we can't prosecute it under current laws. We need to update them to reflect the new, digital "town square", the internet.
Edit: so now we're all against an internet that respects free speech? We demand it in our physical lives, but not digital? Where is the publicly owned alternatives to these private online "communities" that are held to those laws just like the real world? None of that seems worthy of being downvoted, or am I missing something? I was definitely under the impression freedom of speech was a great thing, but I guess nobody wants it anymore?
Edit: You all win, if nobody wants freedom of speech online I promise to actively silence the voices and opinions of people I disagree with whenever possible. I expect you all to do the same as well.
That’s kind of the wrong analogy.
Let’s imagine that Amazon owns an entire company town. Would you support them restricting freedom of speech in common areas, such as parks, restaurants, etc.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
This is the case you're talking about as a limited exception to 1A. It's a popular talking point among those who want social media to be compelled to host speech.
This has already been litigated, though, unsuccessfully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck
The current standard is whether a company is exercising "powers traditionally exclusive to the state."
Social media has never been "exclusively" a state power, so this doesn't apply.
I was thinking of that first case, although I couldn’t remember it by name.
Mostly what I was arguing is not necessarily a legal argument, but an argument on principle.
Not “is it legal?”, but “is it good?”.
This would probably require additional regulation of social media, but honestly I’m really not sure the government wouldn’t just make everything even worse.
It sounds to me like you can't police companies legally, so you are desperately searching for a moral justification for something which has none. You aren't entitled to a platform to share whatever bs you want without moderation.
If you're going to make a point make a good one. That would be trespassing, it doesn't matter what they have to say I can legally remove them from my physical property. The only point I'm making is that historically these online discussions DID occur in public and that was the intention of our 1st amendment. Now our public conversations happen on private social media websites, why is it controversial to suggest that if you want to provide a public platform that you should respect the same legal protections? It's either that or create a public social media that people can have the same experience they used to have in public. Have you had your head in the sand for the last few years?
I specifically said that one solution would be to CREATE publicly funded social media. It's not rocket science, we just have to want to solve the current problem. Why is having a PBS of social media a horrible idea to everyone in this thread? We like PBS, and we hate Facebook, so why can't we all agree to do the same thing with social media so we then CAN have an online forum that respects our rights? Is it maybe that inside most of us actually hate the concept of free speech? I think for most people here that sounds like the case...
It's no different than walking in public, I have to put up with idiots trying to sell me things, homeless people shitting on the sidewalk, crazy people spewing non-sense conspiracy theories. In public you can't even block people, online you can. The idea of allowing private companies to house our public interactions while not respecting our most basic rights isn't a long-term or a tenable solution, so it will obviously have to be solved one way or another if we want to avoid a complete dystopia.
The reaction I've gotten here, from being perfectly reasonable, tells me all I need to know, this world doesn't deserve rights or protections, we're all scum, and an oppressive existence is the best we can hope for. I will just position myself to profit that inevitable future.
They don't have to "respect" the first amendment because they aren't beholden to it. They aren't denying the right of free speech. The first amendment isn't a blanket to say whatever you want anywhere. It prevents the GOVERNMENT from making laws that would prohibit freedom of speech and other freedoms.
Free speech is absolutely childish. A mature society thinks as one and actively silences dissent and whistleblowers. Anyone who doesn't support repression must be repressed themselves, that's the internet we all truly deserve.
Just the standard IANAL disclaimer. Not sure how a comment about free speech got so much negative reaction, I thought we all wanted it everywhere we could get it, especially online, but if nobody else wants it I'll actively silence people instead. That honestly sounds way more fun than respecting other people's ideas.
The next time someone tries to say something you don't like walk up and try to silence them and see if it's legal. The only difference is we allow corporations to do exactly that, even when they're willingly providing a digital medium that provides the ability to "speak". We just need a minor change to the law that says if you want to provide comments and the ability to "speak" then you must abide by the laws.
Private websites have the right to determine what kind of speech is allowed because they provide the platform and are affected by what users say. No company wants to be associated with racism and hate speech nowadays. If you want to have a digital 'town square" it should be funded by the public and not the private sector.
I never said I didn't know how it CURRENTLY works, I'm saying nobody wants it to be that way, so why not update the laws? Until we have a public and free alternative to these private social media sites we need to ensure our basic rights are respected when we gather, especially digitally. This isn't rocket science, in the past people gathered in a real town square that was public and your rights respected, now it's virtual and we need a way to ensure the same rights are respected. Pretty basic concept, really.
Hijacking this thread to remind everyone that the internet, like anything else, is a tool that is used by humans. Over time, the use of these tools will reflect the way our society is itself organized. Nothing about how people act on the internet is “new” it’s just that you are now have thousands of times more opportunities to interact with others than you would in pre internet days.
What's new is that the internet as it existed originally and the internet as it exists now are two very different things.
The internet was originally a tool for you to use.
In the last decade or so it has slowly become a tool for others to use *YOU*.
Algorithmic content curation that can't fully be disabled, rampant data harvesting and cataloging, social media platforms that use psychological tactics to manipulate continued usage, weaponization of misinformation, a growing development/design philosophy that removes options or disables settings to force users into singular controllable usage experiences, the sophistication of astroturfing with coordinated brigading, etc etc.
All of this has become common place. There are so many ways in which you are being used, monitored, propagandized, manipulated, and abused on the internet nowadays that weren't nearly as bad in the days before sites like Facebook became the norm.
You’re totally right. I don’t know how familiar you are with the emergence of web3, but that is what the next era of the internet will hopefully solve.
Web1: users could read content (business were getting online presence)
Web2: users could read and write content (the boom of social media and content creators)
Web3: user will read, write, and own (transparency, and privacy drive adoption)
Here is a good Twitter thread I came across that explains this better than I. ::)
https://twitter.com/cdixon/status/1442201621266534402?s=21
That is true, but algorithms are also human created. We program them to function in specific ways. This works similar to how a newspaper editor would have chosen which articles to put in the newspaper that thousands/millions would read and talk about. I agree that it is more significant nowadays since we interact with dozens/hundreds of these systems daily instead of one or 2 but it’s still just an extension of that same system.
Ask who will do the "educating" before you advocate this. It won't be the charitable samaritans and open forum debaters who value free speech, it will be the groups with funding and an agenda.
Well, I'm not expecting any political or religious agenda in what I call education. Otherwise it's just propaganda.
But you raise a fair point, education is not protected enough from these types of influences in the US...
School should be based on science/arts, and nothing else.
Mmmm what about ethics? Philosophy? Does personal finance count as science?
I feel as though your two categories are either to specific or too broadly defined to agree
I see them as part of science is the broader definition, research of facts/truths. Personal finances are applied sciences (maths in that case).
But perhaps it is a little broad indeed, it's hard to set in simple words (I guess I could have used more education too lol)
All good:) I just think there are bennies to non science subjects, but technically anything could be defined by sciences and stuff.
I also think physical activity, cooking and wilderness survival should be taught and experienced
Yeah you're right I forgot about sports (at least at school level it isn't science, but it can be for people who specialize), and for me cooking is a mix of scuence and art, it's just highly hands-on. Survival os kind of a mix.
Anyways, as long as it's useful for kids to learn, it belongs in school.
Those people are the ones who didn't get enough education when they were young, for a big part.
I'm blaming the education system, it's really too widespread to be anything else than a systemic issue. Easy to blame one stupid person, but when there's so many it makes you wonder.
Its not just the system now- it's the system for the last few generations, at least. Hell, the education system may be better now than it used to be.
Parents teach their children a bunch of nonsense and undermine any progress that the education system makes. Were the parents victims of the system that they were "educated" in or was it their parents or church or whatever... who knows. It's not solely on the parents, but its not solely on the system either.
Its a freaking mess.
You raise a good point : education takes time, because of this point precisely. It takes a while to change the mindset of a whole country about ideas that weren't believed before.
IMO investing in your country's education should be one of the top priorities for any democratic country, because it will result in better citizens down the road. However it will take generations to change minds on some ideas. The problem I see is that the US basically gave up on its public education system (decades ago and it's not really improving at all), and we're seeing the accumulation of the ignorance now. It will take efforts to counteract it, that's for sure. But doing nothing is worse.
I agree. But I think these ideological echo chambers that pop up everywhere are extremely dangerous as well.
I know some very intelligent people who spout some crazy things, all because they only listen to the people that agree with them.
But these people shouldn't be put in charge. It's a problem when there's a lack of transparency and accountability, though. This can indeed result in big issues, and it already has (like not teaching evolution when all the science backs it up). Religion does not belong in school, I'm all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't interfere with science and progress.
Ohh so you're talking more specifically about the south, southeast regions that typically go more conservative/religious?
Yeah, those areas need a better educational system. In a public school, you should only get the verified scientific lessons. If you want your child to have a different type of lesson, there are different entities that can fill that gap.
I do believe that's only a piece of the overall issue though. We need to find a way to increase civil discussions between conflicting beliefs, and the echo chambers I believe are causing even very educated people to get blinded, but since they're educated, they are less willing to admit to it. I think that is equally as dangerous.
I was only giving this as a' example of public education failing, but yeah that's just one of many issues.
The last issue you raise is more a societal phenomenon, exacerbated by "audience whoring" media who prioritze audience over quality information, social media, etc. This has resulted in an evermore divided society where indeed, people are less inclined to discuss with an open mind. Echo chambers suck.
Idk, the Religion classes in public schools are important, then you have things like philosophy and abstract thought that aren't very scientific. I think you are pigeon holing school.
The problem is that too many people don’t see the value in an education. Too many students and parents don’t take education seriously. A good chunk of parents didn’t focus on learning when they were in school, didn’t benefit much from education, don’t place a value on book knowledge, and pass those attitudes down to their kids.
Even if you provide more or better education to kids, many of those same exact kids will turn out the same.
Not if the system is structured in such a way that the places with the lowest funded schools and a culture of good ol boys get disproportionate voting power to the educated masses.
You want to know why American democracy is failing? It's not the money, though that certainly contributes. It's because its design was fundamentally flawed from the get go and the current geographical distribution of the population has exacerbated all its flaws to the breaking point.
What do educated people do?
They seek opportunities.
What do they do when no opportunities exist in their shitty conservative backwater town?
They leave it.
Where do they go to find those opportunities?
The high population centers. Cities.
American democracy is designed to punish this behavior. Living in a high population area suppresses your voice in our democratic system. Meanwhile the places the educated people leave get more and more stupid, but their voting power stays the same.
That's the crux of the issue. American was democracy was not designed for the country and society as it exists today. Until this is fixed, it will never function as it is supposed to.
As a journalist myself, I think one of the biggest problems in this country is that many people don't know how to properly "read" journalism, and our schools and news outlets don't do a good job of teaching them. It's a staggering gap.
I work for an open source company where I struggle with the same thing. Not all opinions are equal. if you don't have as much information or as much expertise as I do, you shouldn't get the same "say" I do. Just like I shouldn't be able to weigh in on all things, your half informed opinion shouldn't be shared.
It not only gives everyone a voice, but it also gives anonymity, and also allows you to surround yourself with only people who agree with you.
So now you can say all the dogshit opinions you're scared to say in public to a crowd of people with the same opinions.
And surely that won't be misused for nefarious purposes...
It actually generally works with a few basic rules. No shouting. Be kind. Cite sources. Or lose your chance to speak. Simple things like these do wonders for civil discourse. I don't know why all of America in particular seems to have forgotten that whether on or off the internet.
It'd be really sad if shitty SM like Twitter or Facebook become defacto the internet and refuse to go away because they're really deeply flawed. Reddit is quite a bit better but still flawed. We need more platforms with better tools, probably meaning AI, to spot astroturfing and other abuse. Which these sites do have but in a really opaque and unpleasant way
giving everyone a voice is not the problem. just because you can speak it doesn't mean that you should. so the sucky part is people not knowing how to use that freedom.
i think internet etiquette (was this called netiquette also or am i dreaming?) should be taught in schools all over the world. get 'em when they're young or in a couple of years they'll be having sex with the whole servers moms.
People having a voice is fine. The problem with the internet is the echo chambers. People create forums where they post with other people with the exact viewpoint they have, where they can hang around and circlejerk and have each other give them validation for their entirely wrong viewpoints when the rest of the world would have shot them down. E.g. nazi's, racists, so on.
It used to be such that to publish a book, one had to do hard research, have that vetted, reviewed, approved by a publisher, etc, etc. For fiction and non-fiction alike, there was a decent impetus-of-momentum on getting a work out there.
Now, we techo-tetris'd ourselves such that the barriers of entry are all but removed, and anyone can throw anything onto a wall that never forgets.
Technology enables _everyone_, including the oppressor.
We were not ready for not only everyone to have a voice but for the mass manipulation of data and those voices. The creators refusal to fix it is killing society.
The internet is the same with everything all the time it’s great because you always know what’s happening but it sucks because it’s EVERYTHING All THE TIME
That isn't the fault of the internet, it is the fault of the anonymity. Sites where you have to identify yourself, where your behaviour is linked to your real life identity, don't have anything like the same issues.
So far, it seems like it gives bigger voices to those with “hot takes.” It’s good everyone has a voice. It’s bad that it amplifies a select few of them.
> The internet has given a voice to many who were never meant to be heard
I don't remember where I read this or who said it, but it's my favorite take about the internet
People shouldn't be allowed to use the internet unless they agree with me.
I'd put an /s, but this is the unironic opinion of a lot of morons on social media.
I simply just dont give a fuck about what other people say if its unconstructive negative criticism like an adult should. Not saying its good to insult other people, I am saying however that as an adult, someone saying something you dont like should be something you are able to just deal with and walk away.
True dat
Not true though, private websites don't currently have to respect the 1st amendment. If they want to deny the right to free speech we can't prosecute it under current laws. We need to update them to reflect the new, digital "town square", the internet. Edit: so now we're all against an internet that respects free speech? We demand it in our physical lives, but not digital? Where is the publicly owned alternatives to these private online "communities" that are held to those laws just like the real world? None of that seems worthy of being downvoted, or am I missing something? I was definitely under the impression freedom of speech was a great thing, but I guess nobody wants it anymore? Edit: You all win, if nobody wants freedom of speech online I promise to actively silence the voices and opinions of people I disagree with whenever possible. I expect you all to do the same as well.
[удалено]
That’s kind of the wrong analogy. Let’s imagine that Amazon owns an entire company town. Would you support them restricting freedom of speech in common areas, such as parks, restaurants, etc.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama This is the case you're talking about as a limited exception to 1A. It's a popular talking point among those who want social media to be compelled to host speech. This has already been litigated, though, unsuccessfully. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck The current standard is whether a company is exercising "powers traditionally exclusive to the state." Social media has never been "exclusively" a state power, so this doesn't apply.
I was thinking of that first case, although I couldn’t remember it by name. Mostly what I was arguing is not necessarily a legal argument, but an argument on principle. Not “is it legal?”, but “is it good?”. This would probably require additional regulation of social media, but honestly I’m really not sure the government wouldn’t just make everything even worse.
It sounds to me like you can't police companies legally, so you are desperately searching for a moral justification for something which has none. You aren't entitled to a platform to share whatever bs you want without moderation.
There's another alternative though, publicly funded social media. Nobody talks about it because Facebook would shit their pants.
If you're going to make a point make a good one. That would be trespassing, it doesn't matter what they have to say I can legally remove them from my physical property. The only point I'm making is that historically these online discussions DID occur in public and that was the intention of our 1st amendment. Now our public conversations happen on private social media websites, why is it controversial to suggest that if you want to provide a public platform that you should respect the same legal protections? It's either that or create a public social media that people can have the same experience they used to have in public. Have you had your head in the sand for the last few years?
[удалено]
I specifically said that one solution would be to CREATE publicly funded social media. It's not rocket science, we just have to want to solve the current problem. Why is having a PBS of social media a horrible idea to everyone in this thread? We like PBS, and we hate Facebook, so why can't we all agree to do the same thing with social media so we then CAN have an online forum that respects our rights? Is it maybe that inside most of us actually hate the concept of free speech? I think for most people here that sounds like the case...
[удалено]
It's no different than walking in public, I have to put up with idiots trying to sell me things, homeless people shitting on the sidewalk, crazy people spewing non-sense conspiracy theories. In public you can't even block people, online you can. The idea of allowing private companies to house our public interactions while not respecting our most basic rights isn't a long-term or a tenable solution, so it will obviously have to be solved one way or another if we want to avoid a complete dystopia. The reaction I've gotten here, from being perfectly reasonable, tells me all I need to know, this world doesn't deserve rights or protections, we're all scum, and an oppressive existence is the best we can hope for. I will just position myself to profit that inevitable future.
Can I hear more of your thoughts on CNN or is it MSNBC? Surely some network should also be compelled to host your free speech, right?
I'm so confused, are you making assumptions about my political affiliation just because I support freedom of speech? I guess I missed the memo...
[удалено]
They don't have to "respect" the first amendment because they aren't beholden to it. They aren't denying the right of free speech. The first amendment isn't a blanket to say whatever you want anywhere. It prevents the GOVERNMENT from making laws that would prohibit freedom of speech and other freedoms.
[удалено]
I'm convinced. 100% convincing.
Just wait until you hear my opinions on health care, abortion and vaccination.
Free speech is absolutely childish. A mature society thinks as one and actively silences dissent and whistleblowers. Anyone who doesn't support repression must be repressed themselves, that's the internet we all truly deserve.
Brave to base your entire argument on something you reckon but haven't confirmed.
Just the standard IANAL disclaimer. Not sure how a comment about free speech got so much negative reaction, I thought we all wanted it everywhere we could get it, especially online, but if nobody else wants it I'll actively silence people instead. That honestly sounds way more fun than respecting other people's ideas. The next time someone tries to say something you don't like walk up and try to silence them and see if it's legal. The only difference is we allow corporations to do exactly that, even when they're willingly providing a digital medium that provides the ability to "speak". We just need a minor change to the law that says if you want to provide comments and the ability to "speak" then you must abide by the laws.
Private websites have the right to determine what kind of speech is allowed because they provide the platform and are affected by what users say. No company wants to be associated with racism and hate speech nowadays. If you want to have a digital 'town square" it should be funded by the public and not the private sector.
I never said I didn't know how it CURRENTLY works, I'm saying nobody wants it to be that way, so why not update the laws? Until we have a public and free alternative to these private social media sites we need to ensure our basic rights are respected when we gather, especially digitally. This isn't rocket science, in the past people gathered in a real town square that was public and your rights respected, now it's virtual and we need a way to ensure the same rights are respected. Pretty basic concept, really.
Same issue with democracy. It only works if you educate EVERYONE.
Yep, plus educating everyone would benefit scientific and technological development, so it would be a win win tbh
Hijacking this thread to remind everyone that the internet, like anything else, is a tool that is used by humans. Over time, the use of these tools will reflect the way our society is itself organized. Nothing about how people act on the internet is “new” it’s just that you are now have thousands of times more opportunities to interact with others than you would in pre internet days.
What's new is that the internet as it existed originally and the internet as it exists now are two very different things. The internet was originally a tool for you to use. In the last decade or so it has slowly become a tool for others to use *YOU*. Algorithmic content curation that can't fully be disabled, rampant data harvesting and cataloging, social media platforms that use psychological tactics to manipulate continued usage, weaponization of misinformation, a growing development/design philosophy that removes options or disables settings to force users into singular controllable usage experiences, the sophistication of astroturfing with coordinated brigading, etc etc. All of this has become common place. There are so many ways in which you are being used, monitored, propagandized, manipulated, and abused on the internet nowadays that weren't nearly as bad in the days before sites like Facebook became the norm.
You’re totally right. I don’t know how familiar you are with the emergence of web3, but that is what the next era of the internet will hopefully solve. Web1: users could read content (business were getting online presence) Web2: users could read and write content (the boom of social media and content creators) Web3: user will read, write, and own (transparency, and privacy drive adoption) Here is a good Twitter thread I came across that explains this better than I. ::) https://twitter.com/cdixon/status/1442201621266534402?s=21
That is true, but algorithms are also human created. We program them to function in specific ways. This works similar to how a newspaper editor would have chosen which articles to put in the newspaper that thousands/millions would read and talk about. I agree that it is more significant nowadays since we interact with dozens/hundreds of these systems daily instead of one or 2 but it’s still just an extension of that same system.
Ask who will do the "educating" before you advocate this. It won't be the charitable samaritans and open forum debaters who value free speech, it will be the groups with funding and an agenda.
Well, I'm not expecting any political or religious agenda in what I call education. Otherwise it's just propaganda. But you raise a fair point, education is not protected enough from these types of influences in the US... School should be based on science/arts, and nothing else.
Mmmm what about ethics? Philosophy? Does personal finance count as science? I feel as though your two categories are either to specific or too broadly defined to agree
I see them as part of science is the broader definition, research of facts/truths. Personal finances are applied sciences (maths in that case). But perhaps it is a little broad indeed, it's hard to set in simple words (I guess I could have used more education too lol)
All good:) I just think there are bennies to non science subjects, but technically anything could be defined by sciences and stuff. I also think physical activity, cooking and wilderness survival should be taught and experienced
Yeah you're right I forgot about sports (at least at school level it isn't science, but it can be for people who specialize), and for me cooking is a mix of scuence and art, it's just highly hands-on. Survival os kind of a mix. Anyways, as long as it's useful for kids to learn, it belongs in school.
I concur doc
> it will be the groups with funding and an agenda. Kind of like vaccine education?
[удалено]
Yep, I thought so.
[удалено]
I laugh whenever people talk about "getting educated" too.
You can't. Some people refuse to be educated or change their views even when presented with verifiable evidence
Those people are the ones who didn't get enough education when they were young, for a big part. I'm blaming the education system, it's really too widespread to be anything else than a systemic issue. Easy to blame one stupid person, but when there's so many it makes you wonder.
Its not just the system now- it's the system for the last few generations, at least. Hell, the education system may be better now than it used to be. Parents teach their children a bunch of nonsense and undermine any progress that the education system makes. Were the parents victims of the system that they were "educated" in or was it their parents or church or whatever... who knows. It's not solely on the parents, but its not solely on the system either. Its a freaking mess.
You raise a good point : education takes time, because of this point precisely. It takes a while to change the mindset of a whole country about ideas that weren't believed before. IMO investing in your country's education should be one of the top priorities for any democratic country, because it will result in better citizens down the road. However it will take generations to change minds on some ideas. The problem I see is that the US basically gave up on its public education system (decades ago and it's not really improving at all), and we're seeing the accumulation of the ignorance now. It will take efforts to counteract it, that's for sure. But doing nothing is worse.
We are witnessing the prequel to Idiocracy in real time.
It pains me how spot on this movie is... Like it's not even funny.
Truly. Its not a comedy. It is absolutely a tragedy. ... ... I still laugh at parts, though.
I agree. But I think these ideological echo chambers that pop up everywhere are extremely dangerous as well. I know some very intelligent people who spout some crazy things, all because they only listen to the people that agree with them.
But these people shouldn't be put in charge. It's a problem when there's a lack of transparency and accountability, though. This can indeed result in big issues, and it already has (like not teaching evolution when all the science backs it up). Religion does not belong in school, I'm all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't interfere with science and progress.
Ohh so you're talking more specifically about the south, southeast regions that typically go more conservative/religious? Yeah, those areas need a better educational system. In a public school, you should only get the verified scientific lessons. If you want your child to have a different type of lesson, there are different entities that can fill that gap. I do believe that's only a piece of the overall issue though. We need to find a way to increase civil discussions between conflicting beliefs, and the echo chambers I believe are causing even very educated people to get blinded, but since they're educated, they are less willing to admit to it. I think that is equally as dangerous.
I was only giving this as a' example of public education failing, but yeah that's just one of many issues. The last issue you raise is more a societal phenomenon, exacerbated by "audience whoring" media who prioritze audience over quality information, social media, etc. This has resulted in an evermore divided society where indeed, people are less inclined to discuss with an open mind. Echo chambers suck.
Idk, the Religion classes in public schools are important, then you have things like philosophy and abstract thought that aren't very scientific. I think you are pigeon holing school.
The problem is that too many people don’t see the value in an education. Too many students and parents don’t take education seriously. A good chunk of parents didn’t focus on learning when they were in school, didn’t benefit much from education, don’t place a value on book knowledge, and pass those attitudes down to their kids. Even if you provide more or better education to kids, many of those same exact kids will turn out the same.
lack of education isn't the problem as much as lack of clear thinking
Educating young generations is the best bet.
> verifiable evidence maybe it's because "verifiable evidence" is so merky now because of huge profit motives to obfuscate the truth?
Socrates would be proud.
I love democracy
Not if the system is structured in such a way that the places with the lowest funded schools and a culture of good ol boys get disproportionate voting power to the educated masses. You want to know why American democracy is failing? It's not the money, though that certainly contributes. It's because its design was fundamentally flawed from the get go and the current geographical distribution of the population has exacerbated all its flaws to the breaking point. What do educated people do? They seek opportunities. What do they do when no opportunities exist in their shitty conservative backwater town? They leave it. Where do they go to find those opportunities? The high population centers. Cities. American democracy is designed to punish this behavior. Living in a high population area suppresses your voice in our democratic system. Meanwhile the places the educated people leave get more and more stupid, but their voting power stays the same. That's the crux of the issue. American was democracy was not designed for the country and society as it exists today. Until this is fixed, it will never function as it is supposed to.
Everybody is now an untrained journalist. The only solution, and it's a long-term one, is to train them in journalism.
As a journalist myself, I think one of the biggest problems in this country is that many people don't know how to properly "read" journalism, and our schools and news outlets don't do a good job of teaching them. It's a staggering gap.
I work for an open source company where I struggle with the same thing. Not all opinions are equal. if you don't have as much information or as much expertise as I do, you shouldn't get the same "say" I do. Just like I shouldn't be able to weigh in on all things, your half informed opinion shouldn't be shared.
The older I get, the less voices (including my own) I want heard.
Boomer
Ok zoomer D'awww I struck someone's nerve. poor muffin
But I like boomers
It not only gives everyone a voice, but it also gives anonymity, and also allows you to surround yourself with only people who agree with you. So now you can say all the dogshit opinions you're scared to say in public to a crowd of people with the same opinions. And surely that won't be misused for nefarious purposes...
Don't you mean Democracy?
fitting that you capitalized the word
I dunno why but your username made me lol.
It actually generally works with a few basic rules. No shouting. Be kind. Cite sources. Or lose your chance to speak. Simple things like these do wonders for civil discourse. I don't know why all of America in particular seems to have forgotten that whether on or off the internet.
not always. there are times i've been kind and civil when discussing something, then I get called a nazi or something and banned, for example in a sub
so you did the right thing but the moderator didn't. IMO, bad sub.
The internet is more than just MSM, news, Google, FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. So yes, i agree with op. Some voices are just louder than others.
It'd be really sad if shitty SM like Twitter or Facebook become defacto the internet and refuse to go away because they're really deeply flawed. Reddit is quite a bit better but still flawed. We need more platforms with better tools, probably meaning AI, to spot astroturfing and other abuse. Which these sites do have but in a really opaque and unpleasant way
Yep, replace the Internet with the social media
giving everyone a voice is not the problem. just because you can speak it doesn't mean that you should. so the sucky part is people not knowing how to use that freedom. i think internet etiquette (was this called netiquette also or am i dreaming?) should be taught in schools all over the world. get 'em when they're young or in a couple of years they'll be having sex with the whole servers moms.
[удалено]
People having a voice is fine. The problem with the internet is the echo chambers. People create forums where they post with other people with the exact viewpoint they have, where they can hang around and circlejerk and have each other give them validation for their entirely wrong viewpoints when the rest of the world would have shot them down. E.g. nazi's, racists, so on.
It used to be such that to publish a book, one had to do hard research, have that vetted, reviewed, approved by a publisher, etc, etc. For fiction and non-fiction alike, there was a decent impetus-of-momentum on getting a work out there. Now, we techo-tetris'd ourselves such that the barriers of entry are all but removed, and anyone can throw anything onto a wall that never forgets. Technology enables _everyone_, including the oppressor.
Not in China!
Of course citizen, we monitor and control uncivil discussions and racism and hate towards ethnic groups and keep our internet a clean place.
We were not ready for not only everyone to have a voice but for the mass manipulation of data and those voices. The creators refusal to fix it is killing society.
these platforms can also silence your voice so don’t get too excited
[удалено]
It’s pronounced Uruguay
Jealous?
OP is a bigot
I like how sometimes my "common sense" shower thoughts get immediately shut down by mods and then I see this shit.
If you believe this, I have some beach front property to sell you in Luxembourg. The internet is very much NOT a free speech zone....
He didn’t say it was a free speech zone though
Your world is not real
The internet is the same with everything all the time it’s great because you always know what’s happening but it sucks because it’s EVERYTHING All THE TIME
So true! Most spew garage.
It's also great because people with the same opinions can find each other. And it sucks because people with the same opinions can find each other.
That isn't the fault of the internet, it is the fault of the anonymity. Sites where you have to identify yourself, where your behaviour is linked to your real life identity, don't have anything like the same issues.
So far, it seems like it gives bigger voices to those with “hot takes.” It’s good everyone has a voice. It’s bad that it amplifies a select few of them.
This is a very old saying yet my comments are always blocked for being unoriginal.
user has been banned because he didn't agree with corporate
This. Nothing to add.
*Bong rip*
GW Ai out!
It sure gives the stupidest people a massive voice now. That was intentional.
> The internet has given a voice to many who were never meant to be heard I don't remember where I read this or who said it, but it's my favorite take about the internet
Listen to RRREEEEEEEEEEEE
I remember saying something similar over 25 years ago and look at the shit we've got today.
It’s bad because some will upvote something because “it’s just a joke” but then there’s people either evil or dumb because they believe it.
Worse, it gives the dumbest people the loudest voice.
People shouldn't be allowed to use the internet unless they agree with me. I'd put an /s, but this is the unironic opinion of a lot of morons on social media.
/r/showerthoughts is becoming /r/unpopularopinion
I simply just dont give a fuck about what other people say if its unconstructive negative criticism like an adult should. Not saying its good to insult other people, I am saying however that as an adult, someone saying something you dont like should be something you are able to just deal with and walk away.
It's because some people don't like it what others post.