(04-20-2022, 11:51 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(04-20-2022, 10:55 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Your vitriol is the primary driver behind your content, not anything substantive. You have become quite adept at picking up the things you can correct, like typos, while avoiding engaging in any real dialogue. You're smart enough to notice the proofing error, but not genuine enough to address the crux of the argument. Talk about some herp-derp. 

We all know what your point was. Norman addressed it when he asked who gets to decide what's harmful disinformation, and, more importantly, who gets to decide who is censored by it, which is the big concern. You say the courts decide, like that's satisfactory. It's not. They are there to award punitive damages when someone speaks in a way that is harmful to others. They did their job. No one here cares that Alex Jones got financially damaged for spouting off [BLEEP]. 

However, there are several of us that don't want to encourage the process of silencing bad speech because we believe that it's a first principle of Democracy. You remove it, and you remove one of the pillars of liberalism. Your type of thinking will lead to abuse by those in power. It already has. You hide behind the free market on this issue, but is that a cause you really care about? You really think companies should be allowed this kind of discretion? 

MY point was that people like you, who want to silence all the "bad" people, are addressing the symptom, not the disease. The problem is really the failings of our institutions to work for the people, being honest and accountable. If we focus on fixing that, the Alex Jones' of the world lose most of their following. Why don't you point your vitriol towards the establishment that's [BLEEP] everyone over? Alex Jones is small potatoes. 

For all your arrogance, you sure are short-sighted. But hey, maybe you can find some editing mistakes in this post, so you don't have to think about anything. Please present your findings to the forum as proof of your superior intelligence.

OK.
How?

Yeah, I don't know, man. That's a tough one. The media is such a tricky topic. You don't want to censor free speech, but you have to have something that works for the people. I think, for starters, we need to make our media non-profit in order to be called news. There can be opinion pieces and shows, but they can't be on news stations and make money. These groups can only refer to themselves as tabloids or entertainment. The fact that our media works for profit from corporations is a HUGE conflict of interest, and I think making this type of distinction would be a good start. I'd also like it to be mandatory that any retraction be permanently affixed to a scrolling chyron, front page of the website, and given adequate news coverage with the person responsible for getting the information incorrect. 

I have been really toying around with the idea of a no-confidence voting protocol in our general elections. It's still in its infancy stage, but I think there's something to it. We need to have some way to remove people who are not working for us. I don't think we need to vote for our public journalists, but I would like to be able to remove them via a vote. Maybe, when we do our federal elections, we can add votes of no-confidence for our journalists/editors of public news outlets that seem too opinionated or playing lose with the facts. A simple majority vote of no-confidence would cause the editor or journalist to be fired. That probably wouldn't work in our current political climate, but I think we need to be thinking more in that direction. 

As for the government, we have the tools, but we don't use them. We really need to fix the way we vote.

---