They could only remove illegal content and spam. What do you guys think?

  • @stanleytweedle
    link
    61 year ago

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    That’s the government’s entire responsibility regarding ‘free-speech’- to not make any laws restricting it. The idea that the government is responsible for protecting your speech by providing a safe space or protecting you from the public consequences of unpopular speech only started when conservatives realized a lot of their speech wasn’t popular anymore.

  • @TehWorld
    link
    51 year ago

    This has to be the worst idea I’ve heard all week. The free market doesn’t want to hear hate speech and outright lies, which are the other things that might get censored currently.

    • @dudebroOP
      link
      01 year ago

      It doesn’t matter what the free market wants.

      What matters is the first amendment.

      • @TehWorld
        link
        51 year ago

        You are free to say anything you like. I want no part in my tax dollars funding anyone’s speech.

        Besides, who sets the laws on what “illegal” speech looks like.

        • @dudebroOP
          link
          -31 year ago

          Illegal content would be more accurate.

          • @TehWorld
            link
            21 year ago

            What content are you unable to post on FB or Twitter today that requires the government get involved?

            • @dudebroOP
              link
              -41 year ago

              Anything prohibited by US law.

  • Samantha E Xavia
    link
    31 year ago

    Sounds like a Centralised system that will be controlled by the government, no thank you.

  • @rhacer
    link
    21 year ago

    Absolutely not a conservative position.

    • @dudebroOP
      link
      01 year ago

      I mean, considering how crucial social media has become for sharing ideas, the argument would be that the government should facilitate a way for everyone to have access to it.

      Having a few big companies control the narrative is hardly free speech.

      • @rhacer
        link
        21 year ago

        If you are a conservative that means you believe government should be small. Adding government agencies and services is antithetical to that.

        • @dudebroOP
          link
          -41 year ago

          No it doesn’t.

          Not in theory, and not in practice.

  • @Blamemeta
    link
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why not? Would make a good jobs project. Im for it.

  • @BURN
    link
    11 year ago

    Is this so you can spew more transphobic content without getting banned?

    Government run social media would be awful. There’s not a single upside to it. Everyone would be unhappy on that platform. Moderation would have to be so strict that it would stifle any conversation, and I guarantee one political side at all times would be yelling about how they’re being censored more than the other. Without moderation it’ll turn into a far right cesspool like every other unmoderated social media is.

    Also why would I hand my data directly to a government that I don’t trust? At least now they have to go through other companies and 3rd parties.

    • @dudebroOP
      link
      -31 year ago

      I think you have me confused with someone else.

      • @BURN
        link
        21 year ago

        Definitely don’t. Checked and I’ve downvoted multiple transphobic comments from you.

        • @dudebroOP
          link
          -11 year ago

          Hm, you must not know what you’re talking about then.

          I’m sorry you feel that way, but have a nice day.