We are living the consequences of not regulating the internet & social medis

[dlk]

After WWII, Americans clearly understood the dangers of fascism and the Fairness Doctrine was created as a response.

Fast forward a few decades and the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by political partisans.

After that, when the internet and social media came into being, special interests blocked any meaningful regulation.

And now here we are, drowning in a cesspool of racism, misogyny and fascism, with a dictator wannabe soon to be in the White House, with who really knows, actually running our country.

We have forgotten that evil never takes a holiday and we must be ever vigilant.

[claudette]

1. Actually

I believe we are living the consequences of having a wuss for Attorney General. Dump should have been indicted and convicted LONG before he was a candidate.

[whathehell]

4. Actually, two things can be right at the same time

and I believe the consequences we now live with spring from several sources.

[claudette]

5. True

[Blue Owl]

8. Yes

Having a convicted felon appointing SCOTUS judges is the recipe for complete self-destruction of all that is good and just -- the USA will now become an organized crime outfit.

Thanks Merrick Fucking Garland!

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Duplicate post

The “powers” button allows you to self delete.

[bluestarone]

3. AGREE!!

Internet, Social media is a huge problem!! We have to come up with a way to use it to our benefit. That along with some way to get our people to the voting booths.

[sop]

6. It's becoming abundantly evident the internet was a big mistake.

The best thing about the internet is it gives everyone a voice, the worst thing about the internet is it gives everyone a voice. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but not everyone has earned the right to express it. Social media is so fucking dumb because so many people are so fucking dumb. Not everyone with an opinion deserves to be heard.

[soandso]

16. Then you tune them out

and when they say something you disagree with, you counter that with your own speech. This is the United States where freedom of speech is sacred. Other countries don't have a 1st amendment but we do. Remember that anything done to shut up those with whom you disagree can be turned against you. Don't ever forget that. If you think the internet is a big mistake then nobody is making you use it. Stupid shit, BS, propaganda and the like will always be around so what's important is teach kids to be critical thinkers and develop discernment.

[tritsofme]

7. The Fairness Doctrine was a response to scarcity of airwaves, not to regulate speech.

This version of the Fairness Doctrine you are describing is your own post-hoc fantasy.

The answer here is not to shred up the First Amendment.

Let’s not fight authoritarians with our own brand of authoritarianism.

[dlk]

12. Not a fantasy and not the point

There are ways to regulate misinformation and hate speech on the internet and social media without sacrificing the First Amendment. The survival of our democracy depends on it.

If you think not, it appears you may be the one with the fantasies.

[tritsofme]

13. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

It’s madness that you are thinking of ways to give the federal government greater power to censor speech as Donald Trump is about to lead it.

[dlk]

22. No need for pearl clutching

Hate speech that directly leads to someone’s harm is not legal. Fascism in all its forms is a very real threat to us all. So you’re saying we can regulate newspapers and broadcast media but not the internet or social media? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[tritsofme]

25. Incitement has always been illegal, but I imagine it's legal definition is much more narrow than you prefer.

I never said we could regulate newspapers, so not sure what you’re talking about here.

[soandso]

17. You need to get familiar with the Bill of Rights

"Hate speech" is not a crime in the US because we have freedom of speech. It's also subjective.

[dlk]

23. As ugly as hate speech is, I'm more concerned about the fact that today, fascism is a very real threat to our country

And direct threats of violence to do harm others is NOT protected speech either in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

[Melon]

18. This is truly un-American.

I personally would rather choose the message I hear rather than have someone dictate what message is presented. You will not be happy with what one party or one person dictates as correct think for the rest of us.

[AmandaRuth]

9. you are so correct, more so than many will admit. There are a bunch of crypto bro hoes who have more followers than

many, if not most, of the "liberal" networkers, who barely got out of high school and maybe college and are "experts" of economics and crypto. Lots of BS about how inflation, rents will magically go down, and salaries will go magically up.

like it or not, a good portion of people and a larger portion of young kids go to the net for news. As an example, more than one time, there were comments about how tariffs were GREAT for the economy, and when faced with push back, started internet screaming about "POST YOUR LINKS, NOT ONE NEWS ORGANIZATION HAS SAID THAT"

This was day of election, and actually, every major network and news source had tons of stories about the damage tariffs will do, from current news to way back when the monster announced.

[BannonsLiver]

10. Agree on the social media platforms

But that ship has sailed. Now we have to adapt. And that means using the platforms like they do with bots and armies of influencers promoting disinformation. That’s the battlefield now. We’ve spent too much time hoping the dying legacy media will play referee.

[IbogaProject]

11. Actually they ran a simpler campaign and figured out who to pitch to

Another element was Shady Rappers hoping for pardons for themselves or associates. And then on our side the rush to set up a campaign lead to too many wealthy corporate business types like Mark Cuban pushing us to the right of what the public wants. Now that being said, this will be an economic disaster for a near totality of our country and much of the world. It is actually a multifaceted problem that as I say repeatedly started with Eisenhower bringing nearly 80,000 families with ties to the Nazi era from Germany to rebuild the GOP in 1953. That helped get us Nixon, Reagan and the Bush's. Then they slowly did things like push us into Vietnam. Then in the 80s and 90s they started fiddling with the Consumer Price Index to lower the increases in Social Security, and under report unemployment. Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Square Deal and FDR on the New Deal. Now we have focus group tested slogans about very narrow plans that I say amount to gimmicks. $25K credit for new home purchases, while a slight help to the upper half is worthless for folks struggling with debt and sky high rents. Unfortunately Kamala ran to the right of Joe, rather than stake her own path. The wealthy and the media played us to really push the Biden is Old story until June, rather than summer or fall of 2023, when our party could have had an open primary and go through a consensus building.

[Sympthsical]

14. Giving Trump the power to regulate social media would be a bold strategy

Not super eager to see where that one would go.

Because that's who would be regulating social media right now - Republicans. They're about to control the federal government.

The thing about these fantasies about trimming freedoms is that people always just assume they'll be the ones doing the trimming.

In a democracy, the trimmers oftentimes find themselves the trimmed.

[leftstreet]

15. Regulate corporate media. Leave social media alone n/t

[JI7]

19. I agree but regulation now will mostly be for Trump's benefit

[Jit423]

20. Just wait until the crypto thugs take over.

We ain't seen nothing yet.

[msfiddlestix]

24. I truly suspect they already have, but we just don't know it yet.

[JCMach1]

21. Cesspool individually curated to keep you and your a$$

On the couch and not voting.

[Irish_Dem]

26. The American Free Speech value was turned against us.

All of our strengths were turned into weaknesses.

All the loopholes were found to destroy us.

To commit the crime of the century.

[crud]

27. algorithms lead to extremism

Is it free speech when you are being herded by some unknown marketing wizard to engage more and more and more? How free are we?

I have no idea what to do about it.

[uponit7771]

28. ***RADIO *** Was the internet of the 1920s - 1950s ... Hitler used it to detrimental degree

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

29. The fairness doctrine wouldn't have regulated the internet or social media

It wouldn't even have regulated cable news channels like Fox. It applied only to channels that broadcast over the air.

[mike_c]

30. you're not wrong