John Kerry, not a fan of the 1st Amendment

[crazed_hoosier2]

I suspect a good many of us would see comments made by John Kerry and immediately not agree with him because he is a Democrat politician.

I agree with your major thrust here.

But one thing I’d say about being unaffiliated for this election: it’s pretty liberating to feel free to treat both candidates with the contempt they each deserve.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think we have a number of interpretations going on here, and mine is that Kerry is lamenting 1A as an impediment to social media style speech, which is where misinformation grows much wider that it has in the past. I think SM needs regulation. I’m all for the inherent free speech, but the *algorithm* is the damaging mechanism here, and needs regulating. The algorithm is not just silo-ing people, it’s enflaming us all. And for this reason I do hate social media. It’s picking, and sometimes generating false narratives with the intent to anger and inflame….aka “engage”. This can’t be good for society.

Ps. This is one big reason I like the WC. It seems to be operating outside the manipulations of the algorithm.

Who gets to determine the regulation?

No, the farther we can keep government away from the Internet — including and especially social media - the better.

We don’t need regulation of speech.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think we have a number of interpretations going on here, and mine is that Kerry is lamenting 1A as an impediment to social media style speech, which is where misinformation grows much wider that it has in the past. I think SM needs regulation. I’m all for the inherent free speech, but the *algorithm* is the damaging mechanism here, and needs regulating. The algorithm is not just silo-ing people, it’s enflaming us all. And for this reason I do hate social media. It’s picking, and sometimes generating false narratives with the intent to anger and inflame….aka “engage”. This can’t be good for society.

Ps. This is one big reason I like the WC. It seems to be operating outside the manipulations of the algorithm.

And my premise presupposes fair access and control. What if a radical progressive like soros bought up social media outlets. Someone with an agenda. We’re beginning to see that with musk who is drifting farther and farther right. What if he becomes a trillionaire and buys up fb and instagram. Ostensibly someone can create a new platform but it’s largely bs bc of the head start others have and people who have curated followers aren’t starting over

I guess antitrust kicks in but who knows the outcome etc

The no reg invites issues too if you flesh out hypos

 

[PhyloeBedoe]

Who gets to determine the regulation?

No, the farther we can keep government away from the Internet — including and especially social media - the better.

We don’t need regulation of speech.

I don’t see this as regulating speech. it’s regulating the algorithm that feeds you what you get, and much of it is fake anyway. No individual speech is being being curbed. The misinformation being pushed, plus the skewed POVs feels like incitement. I know it doesn’t fit that criteria, but we are heading down a dangerous road otherwise.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don’t see this as regulating speech. it’s regulating the algorithm that feeds you what you get, and much of it is fake anyway. No individual speech is being being curbed. The misinformation being pushed, plus the skewed POVs feels like incitement. I know it doesn’t fit that criteria, but we are heading down a dangerous road otherwise.

You think the courts would see it that way?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don’t see this as regulating speech. it’s regulating the algorithm that feeds you what you get, and much of it is fake anyway. No individual speech is being being curbed. The misinformation being pushed, plus the skewed POVs feels like incitement. I know it doesn’t fit that criteria, but we are heading down a dangerous road otherwise.

It is tho. The algorithm filters content. If the gov intercedes impermissible. Content is the germane factor

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don’t see this as regulating speech. it’s regulating the algorithm that feeds you what you get, and much of it is fake anyway. No individual speech is being being curbed. The misinformation being pushed, plus the skewed POVs feels like incitement. I know it doesn’t fit that criteria, but we are heading down a dangerous road otherwise.

Let me put it this way: what if the law didn’t regulate what newspapers published...but did regulate where stories appeared: front page, above the fold, hidden in the middle, etc.

Kosher with freedom of the press? No. And it’s not even close.

 

[PhyloeBedoe]

Let me put it this way: what if the law didn’t regulate what newspapers published...but did regulate where stories appeared: front page, above the fold, hidden in the middle, etc.

Kosher with freedom of the press? No. And it’s not even close.

I see your point, as well as McMurtry’s. In a way, i agree with you both.

But to use your newspaper analogy, this fictional newspaper is currently taking a deranged story written by a deranged citizen (or more likely, written by a Russian bot) and placing it on the front page above the fold.

As it stands now, the algorithms takes your current POV and manipulatively pushes you info and stories that are beyond your current POV, perfectly tuned to engage you further. I know of no newspapers like that. It’s no longer news. It’s fiction beyond the likes of the National enquirer.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I see your point, as well as McMurtry’s. In a way, i agree with you both.

But to use your newspaper analogy, this fictional newspaper is currently taking a deranged story written by a deranged citizen (or more likely, written by a Russian bot) and placing it on the front page above the fold.

As it stands now, the algorithms takes your current POV and manipulatively pushes you info and stories that are beyond your current POV, perfectly tuned to engage you further. I know of no newspapers like that. It’s no longer news. It’s fiction beyond the likes of the National enquirer.

Others may disagree with you on that characterization. And that’s important here. Our government simply does not and cannot serve as the arbiter of truth.

But let’s even look at this by stipulating your point. Remember the Weekly World News? As insane as that publication was, it was entirely protected by the 1A.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

⁹Cliff Notes version?

"We can't browbeat Twitter anymore".

Over 100 former US security agents employed to supervise censorship and craft the narrative through banning, shadow-banning and other dirty tricks is somewhat more than browbeating..

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Over 100 former US security agents employed to supervise censorship and craft the narrative through banning, shadow-banning and other dirty tricks is somewhat more than browbeating..

51. I know your dementia is ramping up. Sorry, sir, you have my sympathies.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not a response to OP, but just to the topic. Heard an interesting discussion on NPR this morning about how our modern absolutist understanding of free speech has really only been around since sometime in the 20th century. Throughout the 19th century, if government wanted to punish speech, the courts were generally fine with it. The scholar interviewed basically credited Oliver Wendell Holmes with single-handedly inventing modern First Amendment jurisprudence.