How Not to Respond to Twitter and Facebook's Alarming Censorship of the New York Post

submitted by Drewski from fee.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

We need more political ownership over 230 changes, not less.

Banning infinite scrolling is one (random) suggested change. What are 4 other specifics?

[–]starblue 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I really don't understand the big deal about infinite scrolling. But the publisher vs. platform issue is the one big thing. If the start behaving like a publisher, then they lose platform protections. Seems pretty straightforward, and its much easier and more objective than attempting to fact check data.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Infinite scrolling pertains to social media addiction. The idea is that banning it would make it easier for people to log off when they want to, instead of having no definitive end and being able to just scroll for hours and hours.

[–]starblue 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Seems like a nanny-state thing to do to me. Grown adults shouldn't need this kind of coddling.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It depends on what you believe the purpose of the state to be. I see the state as the manifestation of the Nation, and the Nation as a family, thus believe that it should perform a more care-giving role.

Libertarians, on the other hand, see the state as a business, and believe it's only purpose is to protect private property.

And then you have Communists who think the state should do absolutely everything imaginable. They see it as the manifestation of the working-class, thus think it should be involved with everything on the workers's behalf.

[–]starblue 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And then you have Anti-Federalists and Originalists like me who believe the Federal Government has a limited on to protect the nation, and make sure States play fair with one another, and that the States should have the Powers to customise their laws for their own people without federal government interfering beyond the bare minimum (as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution).

But you have good basic explanations of those major categories.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I actually agree with you on this. I don't think the federal government should be strong — I'm actually in support of a Confederation — I just believe that the states themselves, or the regions whenever each state consents, should play a direct role in governing the lives of their citizens. The US are just too big to have one central government.

There are some things I believe the federal government should do, but generally it should have the consent of 2/3 of the states to pass new laws. Furthermore, state constitutions should have precedence over federal laws, but not over the federal constitution, and state laws should be below federal laws unless the law itself allows exemption.

[–]starblue 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now you're talking! This is the kind of stuff I believe we could get into a robust debate over, but in general, if we had this ideal, we would be in much better a state - no pun intended.

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good luck getting them to unban and unshadowban every honest conservative they've picked a fight with