I think it's logical and reasonable from a liability standpoint as it relates to the social media entities. I'm not sure it will do much to curb the urge to silence and marginalize the people we disagree with. I would think people will still follow the people they despise, report on the offensive things being said, and then proceed with the usual means of attack(employment, platform, and infrastructure).
The problem isn't necessarily "Free Speech"; it's more "Free Reach"...
For example: Trump, Dan Bongino, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, they all can still speak publicly. But right now their audience is very niche. Particularly after they've been booted from major social networking services. Their reach cratered after the services finally publicly recognized how toxic these people are (and caved to extensive public pressure).
Also to note the last three names, I had to google them just now to remember their names for the purposes of this comment. I barely remember them today...
Great write up Mike and I mostly agree. I see issues such as how would we deal with many of the conspiracy theories that people got banned for that turned out to be true? Made in a lab, catch COVID even with the shot, cloth masks do not do much, planes are not vectors of transmission, young kids shouldn't get the shot, natural immunity stronger then the shot, etc. Would Facebook etc be held liable for spreading false information and suppressing correct information in those cases? It is a complicated issues with no obvious solution.
I think we probably differ on many things politically but you always approach topics with logic, intelligence and a freedom focus so I always find myself nodding along.
You seem to have what makes many great people great and that is a thirst for knowledge, an open mind and a willingness to see all sides. Keep up the great work, Joe Rogan better watch out :<)
I think it's logical and reasonable from a liability standpoint as it relates to the social media entities. I'm not sure it will do much to curb the urge to silence and marginalize the people we disagree with. I would think people will still follow the people they despise, report on the offensive things being said, and then proceed with the usual means of attack(employment, platform, and infrastructure).
The problem isn't necessarily "Free Speech"; it's more "Free Reach"...
For example: Trump, Dan Bongino, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, they all can still speak publicly. But right now their audience is very niche. Particularly after they've been booted from major social networking services. Their reach cratered after the services finally publicly recognized how toxic these people are (and caved to extensive public pressure).
Also to note the last three names, I had to google them just now to remember their names for the purposes of this comment. I barely remember them today...
Great write up Mike and I mostly agree. I see issues such as how would we deal with many of the conspiracy theories that people got banned for that turned out to be true? Made in a lab, catch COVID even with the shot, cloth masks do not do much, planes are not vectors of transmission, young kids shouldn't get the shot, natural immunity stronger then the shot, etc. Would Facebook etc be held liable for spreading false information and suppressing correct information in those cases? It is a complicated issues with no obvious solution.
I think we probably differ on many things politically but you always approach topics with logic, intelligence and a freedom focus so I always find myself nodding along.
You seem to have what makes many great people great and that is a thirst for knowledge, an open mind and a willingness to see all sides. Keep up the great work, Joe Rogan better watch out :<)