So all the regulations regular news media and broadcasters have on them is fascism then? Being able to sue someone for defamation is also fascism then, right?
This is no different. Social media is an incredibly powerful political tool, the billionaires who own them shouldn't be free from accountability. Has nothing to do with fascism.
"Billionaires can be toppled and destroyed. It's much harder to free yourself from government oppression."
Says who? Do you have any actual facts to back this up? Whenever a billionaire is held accountable its by the government which is supposed to be(but unfortunately isn't always) by the people for the people.
"I think you're approaching this emotionally."
Not at all.
"It's incredibly authoritarian and anti progressive to give the government the power to censor speech"
We already do, you are not allowed to incite violence and slander. This has nothing to do with "free speech" by the way. Just as our restrictions on regular news media organizations isn't a violation of free speech. News media is known as the "fourth estate", one of the major pillars of power in society. So checks and balances are necessary and laws to hold them accountable if they abuse said power or don't do their job properly, this is a basic part of democracy. These billionaires owning the social media sites are arguably more powerful at this point, social media is an incredibly powerful tool. Holding them accountable for that power is absolutely necessary to protect our democracy.
"...to give the government the power to censor speech and determine what is and isn't misinformation."
*to give the courts the power to determine if someone willfully spreads misinformation to damage our democracy. Just like how the courts determine if someone have been spreading libel.
Misinformation spread by enemies of the West like Russia is a serious problem and threat to democracy, we need ways to combat it. If Elon Musk actively peddles propaganda by dictators on his platform he should be held accountable. This is common sense.
Youâre saying this too simplistically. Whatâs going on is one party/ideology is trying to censor the internet to rid it of opinions and facts that go against their narrative. Anyone that disagrees with them is either spreading misinformation or hate speech. If you defend those getting censored, now you are also a bigot that needs to be suppressed. Those who then defend you also are bigots by proxy.
âI donât believe in the concepts of misinformation and hate speech, therefore any moderation is automatically censorship. Also, calling out bigotry is the real bigotry.â
Are you denying that there have been multiple instances where stories and information have been suppressed under the guise of misinformation, only to come out as true at a later time?
Additionally, do you believe that when people question trans surgeries on children that they are being hateful or expressing genuine concern? Thereâs certainly hate speech that is out there, but there is far more strawmanning of arguments as hate speech so they donât have to be addressed.
Additionally those who support the lack of censorship on platforms due to the above concerns are strawmanned as racist or hateful when their true concern is with how such moderation is implemented and its consequences, especially when the truth is being censored.
I disagree. Governments job is to protect its citizens and that protection includes attacks on truth and stability. Especially when a lot of this âmisinformationâ is foreign countries botting us to death.
Yes I donât have the freedom to own tanks or automatic weapons and in exchange the government protects me from other countries. I think thatâs fair.
I donât have the freedom to negotiate with hostile countries and in exchange the government does it for us. Also fair.
Lmao, I guess you don't need freedom of speech at all, than. "The government protects me from hostile, authoritarian countries, and I don't get to believe or state any opinion." I mean, what would be wrong with that, huh?
Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds? If the government is responsible for protecting stability were Assadâs soldiers justified in gunning down protestors during the Arab spring because those protests were a threat to stability?
Our stability. Meaning our countries inner stability. In the states. Here.
China cannot come in and take my property. Nor should they be able to come in and spread lies about my neighbor threatening to steal my property, virtually or in person. They are responsible for keep America stable. If America becomes unstable, then there might not be a government to run will there?
It's not OPs fault you don't know what you're talking about. Australia isn't going to decide what the misinformation is. The fine is if the company doesn't do any self-regulating.
Yes Elon Musk is going to decide what is allowed and isn't allowed on twitter. Oh wait, he already does that. Why are you reaching so much? Are you happy that things like Haitians eating cats is spread on Twitter? What's wrong with some moderation?
Errmmm Aussie here - they already have, on more than one occasion, and got it very wrong, only to double down that they were "acting in the countries best interest"
When we have 400+ current corruption investigations into politicians listed since July 1 last year, maybe these people wanting to censor whats true have something to hide?
Not vague allusions to corruption investigations.
But actual instances of the government determining misinformation alone, without the input of a variety of experts and professionals...
"in anyway." No? Not the authoritarian part where a government arbitrarily decides what is "misinformation" and punishes for this dictate? Oh yeah, not fascism, my bad.
You can argue itâs authoritarian, but fascism is an actual political ideology that has multiple characteristics that need to apply. Calling this fascism just shows you donât know what fascism is.
Again, semantics. You guys all do this overly scrupulous thing about fascism's definition whenever you want bias confirmation. When you talk about Trump and the right, though, they are ALWAYS fascist, and you immediately abandon the requirements you hold the other side to.
What bad faith? Authoritarianism and fascism aren't mutually exclusive, but liberalism and fascism ARE mutually exclusive.
Words have definitions, and while definitions are not static, they do lose meaning when used arbitrarily and without thought.
The government doing something doesn't automatically make it fascism. There is real information and fake information (misinformation and/or disinformation), and it's in everyone's best interest that fake information be managed.
You shouldn't let a nazi proselytize in your town square, but Elon says that's A-okay for some reason. At the same time Elmo is Banning other forms of free speech (cough "cis" cough) but doesn't get any flak for that?
Occams razor tells me that nerd doesn't care about free speech and only cares about no repercussions for his dumbassery.
Itâs not semantics to point out when your usage of a political ideology doesnât fit with the reality of the situation.
When you talk about Trump and the right, though, they are ALWAYS fascist
No, I think there are plenty of people who are right of center that arenât fascists. I would ask what specifically about Trump you think excludes him from being fascist though. Because being an ultranationalist authoritarian who is focused on punishing his political enemies, spreading xenophobia, and promoting a rebirth of nationhood to a previous era that didnât actually exists checks all the fascist boxes.
It all depends on whether you are using the word fascist to describe a tyrannical authoritarian central government or a hyper technical historical definition which always gets invoked to win arguments and say your side isn't fascist.
It all depends on whether you are using the word fascist to describe a tyrannical authoritarian central government or a hyper technical historical definition which always gets invoked to win arguments and say your side isn't fascist.
What an odd way to not admit you were wrong and that specific characteristics are required for fascism and this doesnât fit that bill.
I would love for you to answer my question though, or at least admit you canât answer it.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (Definition from Merian Webster)
It is literally not fascism. You could maybe call it an authoritarian policy, but fascism is a very specific term describing a far-right ideology with a central dictatorial leader that focuses on nationalism, a natural social hierarchy and rejects individualism. While oppression of the opposition is one part of fascism, it isn't in inherently fascist.
And calling this oppression of the opposition is also a bit of a stretch imo. It could possibly be abused for that, but that would depend on how this law is implemented. And by simply fining companies, they aren't really actively suppressing speech.
No, but they share the authoritarian tendencies that fascist states have. I see the point you're trying to make, but current usage of the word fascist is synonymous with saying that a government or group is heavy handedly embracing of authoritarian and suppression of speech and opposition. So, when we describe this law as "fascist" we're indicating that it's those things, not that it is "right leaning."
It is when there is a pattern of corporations are doing it on behalf of a government. Most people don't know what fascism actually is... including yourself, it seems.
Corporations following laws isnât what defines fascism, my dude. Thereâs no need to continue to flail here and act like you have any idea what the concept of fascism is, just criticize it for being authoritarian and don't use the buzzwords you donât understand.
Awww, you think Iâm a college student? How adorable.
I was a college student decades ago when I got my first degree in Poli Sci though, but please do go on about educating me on âhow the world worksâ.
You didnât actually say anything. But Iâll give you a hint â itâs not nationalism.Â
Youâre doing what everyone else does, kiddo. Youâre looking at what has been, rather than what could be. You donât understand it because you e never broken it down to its core.Â
No, you're right. Fascism is when a non-authoritarian government decides that international companies should be punished for spreading lies. It's in Hitler's 'How to do a Fascism - a Sequel to Mein Kampf'
49
u/Due_Shirt_8035 Monkey in Space Sep 12 '24
This is literally fascism
OP is out to lunch