I feel like this should be regulated. We should not let private interests mold our speech just because that speech is being mediated by platforms that they create.
For the record, I’m not making a free speech absolutist argument.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
I’m not a self-determination absolutist
I’m not a due-process-of-law absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-movement absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-conscience absolutist
I’m not a warranted-search-and-seizure absolutist
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that.
In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward.
Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny.
The less common disclaimer
I’m not a censorship absolutist
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor.
People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk.
An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
I mean, I get slurs and stuff but drugs, sex, chauvinist? Like the one scenario it makes sense is to avoid Karens suing because a kid mashes the keyboard on the device they handed off raising their kids to, and ends up on an inappropriate website or something. Freeze peach barely even enters into it.
I feel like this should be regulated. We should not let private interests mold our speech just because that speech is being mediated by platforms that they create.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that. In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward. Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny. The less common disclaimer
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor. People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk. An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
this community seems to cower from defending ↩︎
Your word thinking is double plus bad
Mold our speech, tell us what we can or can’t watch on the internet, and teach the general public to self-censor.
I hate this modern day bullshit. Just let me watch the pron I want, say the shit I want, when I want.
Self censoring by mis-spelling the word porn is quite the touch of irony in a comment like this on a platform like this
I was typing fast give me a fucking break. Childlike responses like that are why we’re in the shit we are now.
Damn, I didn’t anticipate you being so sensitive. A helpful tip: proofreading your messages can prevent you from this heartache in the future.
Of course you could always just reply “typo lol”, or something of that nature, and move on with your day.
Yeah, the first amendment doesn’t apply to private companies, but we really, really need a digital bill of rights
I mean, I get slurs and stuff but drugs, sex, chauvinist? Like the one scenario it makes sense is to avoid Karens suing because a kid mashes the keyboard on the device they handed off raising their kids to, and ends up on an inappropriate website or something. Freeze peach barely even enters into it.
Even if it’s a kid using your phone, they still aren’t trying to type “ducking”.