[NetBehaviour] Free speech
sondheim at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 20:16:03 CET 2021
I think some safeguards need to be put into place; if you look at the
propaganda-machine-work in Nazi Germany, it can do terrible harm. But in
the U.S. under Reagen, the fairness doctrine was scrapped, which meant
local news outlets of all sorts could be grabbed up by opinionated
multi-nationals, and you get people like Rush Linbaugh spreading hatred
unchallenged in rural areas - probably the biggest swatch of territory in
the country. That's where "these people" get their news, unchallenged. It's
far-right-wing money. I also think hate speech might be covered more
directly - one of the tshirts at the riot said in abbreviated form - 6
million is not enough. What do you do with that?
Best, Alan (mind you I've been censored on YouTube and elsewhere myself, I
think unfairly, so you might make a counter-argument that it's all in the
eye/ear of the beholder. It's an aporia.)
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:07 PM Edward Picot via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
> What do people think - have we reached the point at which social media
> companies should be prosecuted for allowing hate-speech, incitements to
> violence, demonstrable untruths and conspiracy theories to be uploaded
> onto their sites?
> Should they be regarded as publishers, and therefore legally responsible
> for their content?
> I'm genuinely torn, but I think maybe we've now reached that point. I'd
> be very interested to hear what others think.
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
*directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel
718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour