etba_ss
10 hours ago
I do not understand all the pearl clutching over hateful speech, "misinformation", etc. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less. Regulating, stifling and controlling speech is always a bad idea. Expose the bad ideas and expose the lies.

If you try to ban them, whoever has the power to ban them gets to be the one who tells you what is true and what is not. I don't trust anyone or any organization to do that. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Yes the result of free speech will be people saying really bad, nasty things and lying. That has always been true and is the price paid for liberty. If something is really egregious and violates actual laws, there are methods that can be employed to track and trace the origin. Platforms can suspend accounts, etc. There are some controls already in place and frankly, many of us have been arguing the controls are already too restrictive with social media companies censoring what they don't want to be heard and viewpoints they don't like. If anonymity is removed, this will only get worse, not better. Do we want the government controlling the algorithms? Is that better than big tech doing it? I don't like either, but the government has a lot more power over my life than big tech.

Weminuche45 etba_ss
9 hours ago edited
Theae people control the populace and overthrow foreign governments by way of speech, so they are acutely aware of its power. Not surprisingly, they assume other are trying to do the same thing they do, so they want to make sure they are they only ones who can win at that game.

They do it for your own good and they know what's best for everyone else.

etba_ss Weminuche45
7 hours ago
I was making this argument earlier in a discussion about just how bad her instinct is. The government controlling speech, which is what her proposal does, is just as bad as the government controlling who has and doesn't have firearms. In order to keep a government in check or correct a tyrannical one you have to have the ability to organize in secret, speak out anonymously and have weapons to fight back. Free speech and the right to bear arms are equally important in keeping the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Speech without guns makes you of little threat because you can be killed and beaten down. Guns without speech prevents your ability to join with like minded individuals, thus also making you of little threat more than a nuisance.

Having the government know who every social media account belongs to is the equivalent of having the government register every firearm in this country. We've argued for years how bad that it because it allows the government to take them one day. The same is true for speech. If they know who everyone is, silencing them becomes much easier. //

anon-csn0
10 hours ago edited
Big Mommy government is likely worse than Big Daddy government.

etba_ss anon-csn0
7 hours ago
Steve Deace often says the only thing worse than the patriarchy is a matriarchy.

Tyranny is tyranny, but it is also a scientific fact that on the average women think and react more emotionally and relationally and men think and act more rationally and instinctively. Therefore, there is a lot of truth to that statement.