contancting advertisers

mobbing

etc?

@Grenade123 Disagree strongly. If it were, you'd see fewer companies on it and more companies banning their employees from using it.

we need to deine the line

Agreed.

how do you ban social media without banning all forms of public communication on the internet? how is social media different from the forums and BBS of old?

And some lines should only be crossed as a last resort.

Forums had one head

as soon as the head is comprimised the forum falls

look at NEogaf

as soon as the owner got outed

Neogaf died

@pratel and how has that been working out for companies? forced to bend to the mob. How many customers does twitter really rake in who are not already fans?

i can;t think of a single company twitter i use for more than just their news letter. which just means i go to twitter and have to search up their tags rather than go their website

See, this is what I mean. Either they don't see it that way, you're wrong (there's a strong messaging and brand loyalty element) or you're just making excuses.

@angeryer If you're a company, you make it company policy that if the boss can find your social media account publicly you get the boot. Most places already will fire people for posting things that put the company in a bad light. The US Government is even more strict.

or we disagree on the level social media is relevant.

If it wasn't relevant. We wouldn't exactly be arguing.

i mean, its a real good tool for advertisers because its tricked people into giving up private data for free.

How relevant do you see social media? because it seems to sway a lot of public opinion

Well yeah, but my question is still how do you get rid of social media without getting rid of the ability to talk publicly online? It seems like an impossible goal, plus tone deaf because everyone and their mom wants to use social media. You're better off trying to fix it.

It's also huge for political organizing.

Which has helped the far left tremendously.

@angeryer i've offered removing the protections that allow for censorship and protection from lawsuits for what is published on their platform. IT allows them to act like a publisher with the protections of a platform.

And the issue is that that would just lead to more censorship as proposed.

has it helped the far left? how many nationalist groups are now on the rise despite their efforts on social media?

@Grenade123 name 3 that are on the rise

Trump, Yellow Jacks, Poland has been marching with anticommunsit and anti-nazi flags together, Brexit

smaller EU countries pushing back against the EU

and how many of those have been incrementing because of social media?

perhaps not all nationalist, but certainly not far-left

and awareness?

because ill tell you if it wasnt for twitter and tim i would not know about the yellow jackets

@Grenade123 Well, there's Ocasio Cortez's popularity for one. Then there's sleeping Giants. And let's not pretned it takes less than a second to find antifa supporters on Reddit.

You also just undermined your own argument that social media isn't that important.

I have proposed something, you just deny that it's a proposition because you don't like it, and have dichotomized the issue

What is your proposed solution then? Hand over social media to the government so when AOC or someone likes her gets into power we are back to square one with no way to fight it?

When you go fiddle with Section 230 (you'd have to) you make it a requirement that immunity means carrying all legal traffic regardless of content (or something slightly less extreme).

I wouldn't think that we have political censorship in the mail system. I think you're overstating and oversimplifying the risks.

Also, I apologize. Beeman's the one with his head in his ass who never proposes anything.

thats what were trying to figure out, I want a clearly defined end goal and stablished lines of conduct so that we dont get hangers on that leave at th critical moment

@pratel what is legal traffic? spamming?