All this is true, but I don’t think the issue with social media is that it’s new so much as the barrier to entry is basically zero. Several documented instances of nonexistent people becoming “influencers” with substantial followings. But even for those that aren’t outright fictional or bot accounts, there’s also a huge swath of trolls who essentially destroy any sense the platforms are for “debate”. As you point out other types of media have been used to peddle outright propaganda and that happened with newsprint and such well before television. There isn’t much mechanism to control that, unless major media really steps in it and actually defames someone it’s hard to get accountability. But I’d say social media is definitely a broader problem than any prior form of media just because literally anyone can post and make shit up, and some numbers of people will apparently believe literally anything. As I said, toxic brew of trolls and morons.
That's very true, lots of stupid out there, however true democracies will have to adapt to the masses having near infinite opinions and alternative facts. Anything else isnt democracy.
I I don’t like your posts. They’re totally one-sided and show no balance, but I did not like Kerry’s comments and tone. They were inappropriate. HOWEVER, social media is the debil. It’s one thing for people to disagree on policy and how to deal with the challenges which confront us ALL. It’s quite another to make up facts, challenge an election and stir the passions of those who don’t read and educates themselves with an open-mind. Your posts suggest you don’t.
This is rich. I am an actual First Amendment lawyer. Most of my work over the past few years hasn't come from liberals infringing people's speech rights. Yet, something tells me that you were cheering on attacks on free speech when it was your guy doing it. I don't know the substance of Kerry's point because Turley (who is an untrustworthy hack) cherry-picked quotes. But the issues of misinformation, truth, free speech, and democracy are all parts of ongoing debates among free speech experts and advocates (particularly over social media). Which side of the debate one falls on tends to depend on which rationale for the First Amendment they prioritize. The two leading ones are the marketplace of ideas theory (pursuit of truth) and the preserving democratic self-governance theory. The marketplace of ideas types take a very libertarian approach to free speech, so they oppose almost all speech restrictions, even those aimed at advancing democracy. The democracy types are more receptive to some speech restrictions if they're playing some sort of democracy-enhancing purpose. A classic example is the Fairness Doctrine. The democracy types would uphold it, as SCOTUS once did. The marketplace of ideas types would strike it down. All this to say, this is a nuanced debate. We're not the only democratic country encountering these issues. It's a shame that Turley chose demagoguery rather than good-faith engagement. I fall more towards the marketplace of ideas side of the coin, but the democracy folks have valid points. Practically speaking, though, their solutions put way too much faith in the government and judiciary imo.
Sorry I don't see how speech restrictions can ever advance democracy....the truth will always be in the eye of the beholder. The truth and facts are often not static.
We accept speech restrictions in numerous areas. Speech that is integral to a crime (like conspiracy), defamatory speech, obscenity, incitement of imminent lawless action, etc. are examples of unprotected speech. We also accept narrowly drawn restrictions of protected speech when it advances a compelling governmental interest, like laws limiting how much money you can directly donate to a political candidate. There are people who believe that it advances democracy and free speech to limit wealthy corporations' or peoples' ability to dominate political discourse. Basically, by placing limits on their ability to flood the market with the ideas they support, you create a marketplace where normal people have a greater voice. You may disagree with that on your own principled grounds, but there are certainly valid points to make about creating a more equal marketplace of ideas or giving our democracy greater power to fight misinformation deemed a threat to it.
Kerry/Schmerry - remember Biden's failed attempt at a "Ministry of Truth"? Biden Gives Republicans Win on 'Ministry of Truth' https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3472878-joe-bidens-ministry-of-truth/ The Democrats are from the government and they are here to help you. Trust them. Really.
Biden's "Ministry of Truth" was some toothless advisory board that issued recommendations to departments within DHS on how to deal with foreign misinformation. The irony of your post is you are proving the power of misinformation.
This thread is funny because Musk bought Twitter just to regulate free speech. He is now amplifying all things Trump, Russian bots or Nazi and throttling all things blue and Kamala. Physicians, heal thyself.
Sure. Government entities ALWAYS stay in their lane and NEVER increase in scope and activity. C'mon - are you really that naive? And, factually, I will accept that you are 100% correct in your first statement. History, the human condition, what people do with power leads me to believe that any new government entity will grow. And when it does how is the Left going to react when it's a Right wing person as POTUS and demands all Left-wing "disinformation" (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) is stifled? Example: how has Harry Reid's changing the Senate rules worked out for Democrats?
Let's not forget Trump said it's not safe for Harris voters to identify themselves or they might get hurt. Has any public figure on the left ever said that about a MAGAt?
Florida threatening to prosecute TV stations airing an ad critical of the state’s abortion limits. https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/media/florida-tv-abortion-rights-ad-fcc-desantis/index.html
