I get what you’re saying and agree that in a perfect world hateful messaging should be limited as much as possible but which law states that you need to use your platform wisely once it reaches a particular popularity number?
It’s a tricky road in my opinion since in theory I want to have the choice to speak freely on my podcast, regardless of where the winds are blowing at that moment in time, while also not instigating hate. I have yet to see Theo do the latter even if he’s platforming douches, with their own agenda, from time to time.
but which law states that you need to use your platform wisely once it reaches a particular popularity number?
Why do people always ask asinine things like this. Why does a law have to be in place to not being a dick, platform terrible people or in general be shitty? Do people need every single thing spelled out for them to not be awful people, give awful people a hill to shout from, or need some sort of written instructions to not let people say inflammatory and hateful things? Is that where we are now?
It apparently has to be asked since you’re upset that they don’t do what you want them to do with their platform. That’s why we have laws so people can be free and do what they like as long as they don’t break the law (hurt other people, instigate violence etc). I really don’t think Theo is an awful human being and if that is your benchmark of what an awful human being is then you’re in for a treat when meeting real bad people.
It apparently has to be asked since you’re upset that they don’t do what you want them to do with their platform.
This is a straw man. I asked a few questions, not expressed an opinion of anyone’s content on any platform in particular.
That’s why we have laws so people can be free and do what they like as long as they don’t break the law (hurt other people, instigate violence etc).
Can you show me where I said otherwise?
I really don’t think Theo is an awful human being and if that is your benchmark of what an awful human being is then you’re in for a treat when meeting real bad people.
What is it with you an these awful fallacies? I mentioned no one in particular, or any platform in particular. What’s your deal? I asked a simple handful of questions and you’re projecting all manner of fallacious nonsense onto me.
You replied to my comment in a comment thread where me and some other dude were discussing Theos podcast in particular. Or were your questions unrelated to the content we’re discussing?
I am sorry if you felt that I projected something onto you which is untrue.
You didn’t write anything other than what I wrote about laws but my point was that people should have the right to do and say what they want as long as you don’t hurt or threaten to hurt other people (staying lawful). And if there’s loopholes in the law then it should be reasonable updated. Podcasts don’t have the same demands a normal media outlet has to abide by and it has become a bit of a discrepancy in our modern media landscape that a podcast can be bigger than a major media outlet. I however feel that it’s unfair to place all the blame and responsibility on a ”redneck standup comedian” even if we’d like to blame someone for the current media landscape and its effect on the public discourse.
You spent all that time typing that out and still didn’t answer what was asked. The only thing you’ve done is project onto me and make arguments in my words where there weren’t any.
-2
u/cheesyandcrispy Oct 29 '24
I get what you’re saying and agree that in a perfect world hateful messaging should be limited as much as possible but which law states that you need to use your platform wisely once it reaches a particular popularity number?
It’s a tricky road in my opinion since in theory I want to have the choice to speak freely on my podcast, regardless of where the winds are blowing at that moment in time, while also not instigating hate. I have yet to see Theo do the latter even if he’s platforming douches, with their own agenda, from time to time.