Dads don't control us. They influence us.Sam Lowry said:Why should we care if it's targeting enemy territory? It's not like they don't target us. That's all part of the game.ATL Bear said:You're using an outdated concept of information control. Censorship is antiquated and difficult. Instead, this is targeting citizens directly in venues where organizations like Hamas, the Taliban, and dozens of others that function to undermine the US operate freely.Sam Lowry said:
For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.
Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?
The power is the pulpit and trend manipulation that uses the same tools the aforementioned bad actors do. Without one use of legal action or order, we've seen how chosen voices are silenced with the support of government narrative. You think it's warranted. I think it's dangerous to freedom. This is one script of how populism destroys freedom, but instead of a ballot it's a like or share.
I do object to social media companies getting special treatment as free forums while acting as de facto publishers. Add the influence of a government fact arbiter, and I agree there could be a problem. But influence isn't control, much less censorship, and calling it that doesn't make it so. The solution isn't to unilaterally disarm ourselves in the information war.
Drunks don't control cars. They influence them.
Information doesn't control us. Information influences us
Publishers don't control information. They... oh wait. Yes they do.
Judas hung himself....
...Go , and do likewise
Publishers simply don't have that kind of power. /s