Message from @Doctor Anon
Discord ID: 513070100266614797
no
it's based on the principle of liberty
different programs have different speech laws
@Deleted User Specifically giants
Like youtube
etc
so you mean social media?
e
yes
they're all different companies owned by corporates, they never guaruantee free speech, it's jst appreciated when they do.
Which is why there is 2 options for them
1. Threaten them with regulation unless they fix their act
2. Nationalize them
@Doctor Anon The social effects are not worth it.
Giant corporations are a larger threat to our freedoms than the fucking goberment
nationalizing social media seems kind of contradictory since the government could censor anything it deems offensive
not to mention several of these media giants have local versions
youtube for example
@Deleted User Nationalization would mean the constitution applies
but it only nationalizes the local version
unless you somehow find away to nationalize youtube in foreign nations
is that even possible?
Youtube would be owned by the government, meaning its rules applies universally
Specifically free speech rules primarly
Set rules, like in ToS could be established to protect free speech for non-u.s users
what about hate speech
Nationalised YouTube
Hm
there is the more reasonable side to censorship and that is to censor downright hurtful material
@Deleted User Hate Speech isnt defined by U.S law
it dosent exist
the only reason why youtube sucks ass at censorship is because the moderators only work on social stuff, the company lets bots choose what is ok and what isn't
"downright hurtful"
is subjective
seperate edgy kids from pshyopaths
that's what the bot is shit at doing
seperating joke videos making fun of politics from fucking ISIS
Youtube has thousands of employees focused on taking down videos
go on