Forum

If censored or controlled speech, which a lot of people seem to want, is democratic, then the USSR was a modern, working democracy.

Choking off freedom of speech goes against the notion of democracy. William O. Douglas knew this. Louis Brandeis knew this. And neither of those two justices were in favor of any form of hate speech.

As for Elon and Brazil, I doubt Brazil's blocking it is going to hurt X very much. Brazil only has 21 million X users. The US, Japan, UK, India, Indonesia, Germany, France, Mexico, and Canada combined have 309 million. The next 10 or 15 countries have another 50 million.

The top Twitter influencers *each* have around 5 times the followers that Brazil has total X/Twitter users. So any negative effect on X the company is overblown.

But yeah. You can't have a healthy democracy when you stifle speech. As Justice Douglas said -- the correct way to combat bad speech or hate speech is by drowning it out with more good speech and accurate speech.

about all of this is the political leaders of this movement always talk about reforming section 230 which PROTECTS those platforms by being sued by individuals for what people post on them. Reforming section 230 would lead to an immense increase in censorship on section 230

I've been censored plenty of times on Twitter/X and other social media platforms. I fully expect it will always happen whether the site if private or public. Government, private owners with strong political views, sites depending upon advertising, owners afraid of being sued (see the story below) will always lead to censorship of one sort or another. TBH I don't worry about it much. Platforms can restrict what I say but there are plenty of venues in which it can still be said

If you are interested in this topic a recent court case is very important to follow as it gets to the core of all of this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/us-court-revives-tiktok-lawsuit-over-10-year-old-girl-s-blackout-challenge-death/ar-AA1pBlcM

Algorithms as a form of speech, and actionable..... That's a headspinner right there. Makes sense, though.

A lot of people online condemn Section 230 without thinking it through. If Section 230 is removed, the internet as we know it will have no free speech whatsoever, because every forum and social media will be afraid of litigation over any little thing said about a person, company, or product. If people think that websites are heavy handed now with their blocking of posts, wait until Section 230 is removed. They ain't seen nothin' yet.

Anyone who thinks that it's tough for free speech right now isn't thinking it through when they attack Section 230.

But this concept of an algorithm (which suggested a social media posting to a little girl who died largely because of it) being a form of speech --- I didn't see that coming. Algorithmic suggestion being actionable for damages in court because it's a form of 'speech'..... Whatever attorneys were behind that argument were quite sharp, really. Too often algorithms used by websites and online media are just blindly accepted as is.

This case you posted could be a game changer if it gets challenged and makes its way to the Supreme Court.

Thanks for posting the link, Dziga.

If Algorithms are speech then Resistance is Futile. AI is coming alright.

I have profiles on several internet websites. I have learned what I am allowed to say on each. NN does not like anything controversial, so I do not post it here.

I do post respectful compliments to the ladies who appeal to me.

Labeling something misinformation is the new way to censor, that way you can claim an incriminating laptop
is misinformation, later to be proven true......after an election.

it isn't democracy, what people have forgot is free ain't free you have to work for it with vigilance, duty, compassion. oh yeah there this idea floating about it's free form effect or consequence. politically the world has become generation alpha.

Political Campaign ads are misinformation by design. All of the misinformation narrative quietly displaces that point.

Didn't you hear, speech is violence, but only if it's coming from the wrong side of the narrative.

Section 230 grants immunity from lawsuits to an internet host from for content posted that might offend someone. However, when the hosts starts intervening is what content is allowed to be posted and actively censors, shadow bans, or use other means to restrict what might be considered free speech, then they should lose the protection of section 230. I believe the protection of section 230 should be removed on a case by case basis if the internet host engages in “editing” content they may disagree with. It’s a violation of the 1st Amendment and should be subject to civil penalties.