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.

If you go and swipe the table under that vase, you technically did not touch the vase.

Ok. We need to regulate the internet companies to protect individuals ability to speak freely. Happy? I haven't really changed anything.

I find an issue with free speech itself.

However, if you say 'That vase is not to be disturbed', then it's clear you shouldn't fuck with the table

Now you're conflating specific legalese with rights.

you shouldn't even jump up and down near that vase.

you shouldn't blow on the vase in hopes to knock it off

Whether you express it as rights or intentions doesn't really matter much at the end of the day.

The protection belongs to the vase, not the one that *really* wants to break the vase.

I get his point but pratel needs to iterate imo

But not gonna force you to.

I'm approaching it in the manner that someone who seeks loopholes would, and that is the word of law.

I'm NOT a lawyer, nor am I in a position to be doing this sort of stuff.

I'm just offering my contribution.

I've got my own business to build.