What’s next, we are going to ban EU media because they may influence people with their evil socialist agenda?
Last I checked, it wasn’t Chinese media that riled up a bunch of yokels to storm the Capital and has a large percentage of the population thinking that the “election was stolen”
> socialist agenda?
There isn't a single country in the EU that's in any meaningful way 'socialist'.
Stop derailing.
As to your last point: approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?
And you sound a lot like the federal government when they wanted to ban NWA because they said they were putting police in danger.
So now it’s okay to ban platforms that cause “bad things” to go viral? Is media also to blame for Jan 6th?
I think if platforms habitually or consistently cause 'bad things' to go viral then the ownership and management of those platforms should be examined, and if it's determined that their ownership/management may be beholden to interests contrary to the welfare of the nation then sanctions should be applied, which may or may not include a ban.
There are well understood exceptions to free speech and freedom of association that apply to the ownership and control of companies that could significantly affect the welfare of the nation. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy
Please answer the questions that were put to you:
Approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?
Who gets to decide and are you okay with people who have opposite political beliefs than you having the power to make that decision?
> Approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?
I don’t know. If you’re okay with holding TikTok liable are you also okay with holding conservative media liable for January 6th?
Would you have been okay with the government banning Doom because they think playing video games causes mass shootings?
Do you think we should sue the gun manufacturers for shootings?
In no other area of society do we think anyone should be blamed for criminal activities besides the criminals.
A bipartisan committee will suffice.
> holding conservative media liable
The subject is foreign adversaries, not domestic strife. Let's not get derailed.
> the government banning Doom
The subject is foreign adversaries
> sue the gun manufacturers
The subject is foreign adversaries
> In no other area of society
Yes, we absolutely do. When companies bring out predatory sales techniques (such as lootboxes in video games) these techniques absolutely do attract oversight, sanctions and - in cases - outright bans. It's well recognised that people can be led astray and there are many legal avenues available to prevent significant impact.
A bipartisan “Right Think” committee of officials get to come together and decide what media should be banned? How would that have worked out if those commie sympathizers who were trying to get the good Black folks in the south to rise up against segregation?
> The subject is foreign adversaries
So you’re okay with domestic adversaries like the ones who invaded the capital because they were riled up by domestic media?
> When companies bring out predatory sales techniques
Aren’t all addictive substances “predatory”? Do you think we should bring back Prohibition
No media is being banned. The same content creators can create their content on another platform, or even the same platform, if that platform agrees to incorporate locally so as to be meaningfully under the control of legislation.
> So you’re okay with
Derail attempt ignored
> bring back Prohibition
Derail attempt ignored
Do you feel the same way if the government suppressing media on Twitter? Facebook? HN?
> if that platform agrees to incorporate locally so as to be meaningfully under the control of legislation.l
So now we are back to the government controlling media. Shouldn’t we also want the government to bring EU media under their control? Maybe we wouldn’t have to deal with cookie banners…
How am I derailing anything? Are you not saying that the government should ban TikTok because it’s harmful?
You're literally Just Asking Questions here, and I absolutely hate that term.
All it really takes to decide whether a government policy is a good idea or not is to think of how the political party you don’t agree with could use that power.
It never ceases to amaze me how willingly people are willing to give power to the government.
We're just discussing how this may be applied to a 'broadcaster' such as TikTok which isn't covered by the legislation that covers legacy media.
The only reason that government can legislate mecha over the airwaves is because public spectrum belongs to people and is licensed
Since 2017, U.S. legislators and the Department of Justice have required multiple foreign-funded news organizations to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA)
https://cpj.org/2019/07/several-foreign-news-outlets-require...
I mean, all these things, if not banned, should at least be subject to regulatory limits. The concern is not the content itself, but the downstream effects on the population. We tolerate regulation on drugs, alcohol and gambling because of the serious negative aggregate effects they have on society. A democratic society based on rule of law should be able to collectively decide that the negative effects of some thing do not justify people's freedoms to do that thing. Without that principle, we might as well live in anarchy.
We also didn’t start regulating weed because of health concerns. It was because of racism.
https://time.com/5572691/420-marijuana-mexican-immigration/
How do you choose not to regulate content and still regulate its downstream effects? How is this different from when Tipper Gore wanted to regulate “violent video games” and rap music?
Minds are changing on content and free speech, too. 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities[1] and the trend by age cohort is very clear and swift. We may disagree but we old people are aging out. Another poll[2] shows 61 percent of Americans agree that free speech should be restricted, and 51 percent believe that the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, should be rewritten to reflect the new cultural norms of today.
I don't think you can regulate the downstream effects of content without regulating the content. Its up to a democratic society to decide whether one outweighs the other.
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-mil...
2: http://campaignforfreespeech.org/new-poll-free-speech-under-...
Is that suppose to be some type of justification for regulation - “because Jesus said so”?
> Its up to a democratic society to decide whether one outweighs the other.
You mean the same democratic society that made non heterosexual sex, interracial marriage, and Jim Crow illegal?
I would much rather give the government less power and you should to. No matter what side you are on, eventually someone on the opposite side is going to come along and use that power in a way that you don’t like.