hamhock666

We need someone in the executive branch willing to enforce the constitution for anything to happen

Yes but it seems like the treatment is addressing the symptoms and not the outstanding source of them as you say. We are slapping band-aids on an open wound

Or the citizens have forgotten or don’t care to hold their leaders accountable

> feels like asking them to cut off their hand

It seems like this would be good reason to ban phones in school. I worry about the detrimental effects of not being able to concentrate. You could at least enforce school as a place to focus. If a student is using their phone during class, then they are not paying attention. It seems worthwhile to enforce this rather than give up on the kids.

Or the mass market consumer media crap will be replaced by artists creating for the hell of creating (probably not streamed on one of these services).

For me the reason is not supporting YT censorship. Not just the random strikes on accounts, or video de-monetization, but doing things like removing the dislike button, and poking people about “misinformation”.

It used to be you could see the ratio of likes to dislikes on videos, but they forcefully removed that from all videos. YT claimed it was to prevent bullying, but it was always possible to disable likes on your own videos. I think the real reason was: All the major news networks had extreme dislike ratios on their videos, and they wanted to promote that over alt sources of information.

With regards to being compensated, if I want to support a creator, I will just donate to them. Many creators ended up using Patreon due to de-monetization.

Yes it’s free speech, I think the issue here is that companies care what their employees say about politics outside of work, enough to fire them if they find out.

Not really in the spirit of free speech.

On my phone, there seems to be a float issue where the boxes are too close together and they draw out of order.

I don’t think it makes sense to trust any single organization, because there is usually some motive other than finding the truth (profit, reputation/fear, power).

Rather find individuals/journalists who are searching for the truth and over the years don’t lie to your face.

Social media censorship does not help with this problem, and if we want to live in a functioning democracy more real debate is needed.

“Go Map!!” on iOS is a great alternative, allows for full editing.

I mean what about the Viet Cong?

I think the main idea is that a well armed population creates a different relationship with the government. It is much harder to round up people and send them to camps if they can actually put up a fight. The idea is to avoid that conflict in the first place by having that threat of civilian retaliation. Yes the government could still do it, but it would be costly.

I think if there are going to be filters, then it would make sense for users to be able to opt in or out of filters. That way you can choose what you want to see, instead of having an almighty force that determines what you see. Having global filters that users can't turn off, besides to filter out illegal content, needlessly take away freedom from users.

I don't think it is necessarily the sway of corporations as much as the sway of the citizens. If Apple got out of Australia it could cause a lot of media attention which could get citizens riled up, especially if they could no longer get Apple products.

You take action with your own speech, not by using the power of the majority to censor opinions and ideas that the majority doesn't like. You have the ability to do this anytime without fear that someone will tell you your perspective and opinions are wrong.

If the roles were reversed and you were living in an authoritarian dictatorship, you might be considered a "bad person", and your speech might be censored or worse.

Even though Facebook is not prohibited by law from censoring the speech of their users, they have a moral obligation to not do so. Cracking down on speech is never the answer to problems where we need to have more discussion. It only shows that we care about that speech enough to block it, which motivates them to cling tighter to their beliefs.

I am all for individuals blocking other individuals or groups, but when something is blocked from the entire community without their consent, it falls under unwanted censorship. We do not want to limit free speech to just the majority opinion.

They might not have reasonable freedom to move or protest, but people will always have the radical freedom to oppose an oppressive regime. It is just much more costly and requires the knowledge that you live in an oppressive regime and access to information in order to break it.