what kind of regulation are you looking for?

Banning censorship.

Social media companies are required to carry all traffic. Like a phone company. I've been open to ignoring the ISPs, but it sounds like they're getting in on the act too. If they won't carry all traffic, they should be treated like phone companies that have to.

I can't change your mind because we are on the same side

Don't regulate companies

Protect the rights of the individual.

Internet Bill of Rights when

Lol

How far should government regulate things has always been a question.

ironic you come into being Socrates just after I finish reading The Republic

@RyeNorth How exactly is this different? You can't impose a bill of rights without enforcement.

Honestly, I think we're better off if we place the onus back on the people.

The concepts are different in nature.

Regulation calls to mind the net neutrality the big social media companies have been pushing via battleforthenet

People currently do not take enough responsibility for their own mental health and susceptibility to the material they watch.

It is only fair to impose it on them if they're being irresponsible.

How do you regulate the internet, do you regulate the service or the people using it?

The service.

My mother exposes herself to MSNBC and CNN every day, and reads books with horrible negative themes; and she lives the neurotic and tortured existence you should expect when doing that.

One angle, you're tying down the companies

So in essence how do you plan to have that regulated

Limit yourself to authentic communications with individuals for 90% of your time on the internet, and everything will go much better.

another angle, you're shielding the individual.

Whats authentic

To say that you're regulating something sets a precedent.

coming directly from their viewpoint, vs. excerpts from mass media, @SantaSoc

You're saying 'these measures limit companies'

require people to restate things rather than simply parroting them.

By establishing it as a bill of rights, you're saying these PROTECTIONS belong to the individual, regardless of the company.

establish that they understand what point they are making.

It's a much stronger position.

If the regulations belong to the company, then they can work to find loopholes

@SantaSoc Use the FTC or FCC to fine an penalize companies that have been censoring. Alternatively, open things up to liability in civil court for censorship. But that means that wealthy individuals and organizations will necessarily be better able to fight.

@RyeNorth I think there's probably something that can be done on that front, but ultimately people need to take responsibility for protecting their minds from the effects of masscomi censorship.

If the rights are interpreted by the end user, then it's much harder to create a loophole in those protections, if they're established effectively.

@xorgy That doesn't work. If ideas are being censored, there may not be a way to find out about them.

If there's an expensive vase on a table

So in effect censor companies that attempt to keep the peace, in order to prioritize individual rights?

and I tell you 'Don't touch that vase'

@RyeNorth You're floating around pointless abstraction. What do you actually plan to do.

I'm pointing out the differences between protections and restrictions.