Yeah, but wouldn't such competitions also have corruption involved (not the the level of say....a regular election, I suppose....but it would still be present)?

@SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck The only feasible thing, would be to nationalise them

Possibly, but it being a competition might get people more interested

@Weez yeah, seems like a good idea

Which means the referees might have to look behind their back for bad calls

Just like Soccer

Have the govt distribute assets towards other lesser companies (such as Gab), mayhaps?

Are we trying to turn politics even more into reality TV than it already is?

Probably not, allow them to continue to operate

You can be bored all you want. As soon as you stop putting thought into your electoral decisions and start donkey(non-vote not a ref of the us democrats) voting your nation will be in the pits sooner rather than later.

Not ALL of their assets @Weez

just enough so it's a level playing field

But a government sets the TOS for the sites.

Or, some body does.

More so to get the community involved and away from the TV instead of just politicians

the actual sites themselves, are presumably the ones who set their own TOS

Then just allow the tech giants to keep working as they do

Level em out

Except the government enforces them to have reasonable TOS

Issue is

You don't want to kill the innovation

And the political power that they provide

Say you could become mayor by winning one of these competitions

Limiting how Twatter bans people would kill innovation?

how does THAT work?

It might encourage kids to learn more

No no, I mean like distributing their assets kinda thing

We don't want to kill them

We want them to keep working and keep innovating

Well obviously it'd kill innovation for getting around the bans

Yeah, I definitively don't.

We just.. Want them to have a policy change

Twatter isn't hiding a terrorist or anything

(AFAIK)

I think human history has been a good enough competition of ideas that has led to the best systems of government that we have come up with. Perhaps public distrust in the system is evident that there is something wrong with the system but we don't have a better way of finding an alternative until someone goes ahead and finds an alternative

Why destroy the house, when you can change the occupants?

Kinda thing.

I mean if you don't have censorship, how do you innovate around censorship @SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck

Or, regulate the occupants to do what you want.

>increase the amount of people in the house by distributing the price of rent evenly @Weez

@Wild Dog <:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>