TBH, I sometimes think banning social media might be the best solution, and also clearly defining what it is and isn't to prevent bad faith actors weaponizing the ban (e.g. any platform that functions as a general "public square").
Maybe we're just too stupid as a species to have it.
NAL, but my understanding is that unilaterally banning social media wouldn't be a violation of free speech, because it's targeted at a single issue for a specific purpose and applies to everyone equally, government included. Removing a public square(s) doesn't mean free speech is denied. It means people will have to find other outlets for their speech that aren't social media.
If the government banned newspaper in the 1800s, because it was poisoning everyone, it would not be a violation of free speech or freedom of the press. If they banned newspaper companies, it would. In this case, they wouldn't be banning Xitter, they'd be banning Xitter-like digital platforms.
I'm not saying I'm fully on board with my own idea. I rather enjoy social media, and places like Discord have been instrumental for people finding support groups. But if experts could prove that our lives would be measurably better without it, I would have to assess my beliefs about it.
(This will likely never come to pass, because companies like Xitter and Facebook would be materially damaged, if not bankrupted, and they'd probably successfully sue over some right to do business or something.)
NAL, but my understanding is that unilaterally banning social media wouldn’t be a violation of free speech, because it’s targeted at a single issue for a specific purpose and applies to everyone equally, government included
Also NAL, but my understanding is that this would be struck down as government restriction on speech. And it wouldn't be the equivalent of removing a public square. It would be the equivalent of removing all the public squares. Removing a single public square doesn't stifle free speech as the person can just find another public square to speak at. Removing all of them means he has no place to speak at, which effectively violates his freedom of speech.
Look at it this way. Take a city like NYC. You can have laws that specifically don't allow protests at this location and that location for safety concerns, for example, without violating citizen's rights to speech and protest. But if NYC suddenly said that you can't protest anywhere in the city, and we've jumped head first into violation of constitutional rights.
I can see that argument. My idea would certainly be a nightmare of a legal headache, so I don't think it would ever come to pass on those grounds alone. My main point was that I'm not sure if humans are responsible enough to be able to safely share so many ideas without first having a skeptical grounding.
Maybe having critical thinking and skepticism classes from grade school through college should be mandatory…? I dunno.
Oh, make no mistake: We, as a society, are absolutely nowhere near responsible enough to be able to handle using social media responsibly. But the solution to that problem isn't what would amount to a blanket ban on free speech. It's actually holding the people who lie and spread misinformation accountable for spreading lies and misinformation, but unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
Probably going to require a multifaceted approach, honestly. Education, further limiting what Free Speech protects, materially punishing the transgressors, etc.
Putting the authoritarianism aside for a moment…
"How to dox literally everyone and give a leg up to identity thieves, a one step guide."
This is certainly a problem with it, but we are seeing a major problem without it too. I'm curious as to what people think a solution might be.
TBH, I sometimes think banning social media might be the best solution, and also clearly defining what it is and isn't to prevent bad faith actors weaponizing the ban (e.g. any platform that functions as a general "public square").
Maybe we're just too stupid as a species to have it.
Problem is that whole "free speech" thing.
NAL, but my understanding is that unilaterally banning social media wouldn't be a violation of free speech, because it's targeted at a single issue for a specific purpose and applies to everyone equally, government included. Removing a public square(s) doesn't mean free speech is denied. It means people will have to find other outlets for their speech that aren't social media.
If the government banned newspaper in the 1800s, because it was poisoning everyone, it would not be a violation of free speech or freedom of the press. If they banned newspaper companies, it would. In this case, they wouldn't be banning Xitter, they'd be banning Xitter-like digital platforms.
I'm not saying I'm fully on board with my own idea. I rather enjoy social media, and places like Discord have been instrumental for people finding support groups. But if experts could prove that our lives would be measurably better without it, I would have to assess my beliefs about it.
(This will likely never come to pass, because companies like Xitter and Facebook would be materially damaged, if not bankrupted, and they'd probably successfully sue over some right to do business or something.)
Also NAL, but my understanding is that this would be struck down as government restriction on speech. And it wouldn't be the equivalent of removing a public square. It would be the equivalent of removing all the public squares. Removing a single public square doesn't stifle free speech as the person can just find another public square to speak at. Removing all of them means he has no place to speak at, which effectively violates his freedom of speech.
Look at it this way. Take a city like NYC. You can have laws that specifically don't allow protests at this location and that location for safety concerns, for example, without violating citizen's rights to speech and protest. But if NYC suddenly said that you can't protest anywhere in the city, and we've jumped head first into violation of constitutional rights.
I can see that argument. My idea would certainly be a nightmare of a legal headache, so I don't think it would ever come to pass on those grounds alone. My main point was that I'm not sure if humans are responsible enough to be able to safely share so many ideas without first having a skeptical grounding.
Maybe having critical thinking and skepticism classes from grade school through college should be mandatory…? I dunno.
Oh, make no mistake: We, as a society, are absolutely nowhere near responsible enough to be able to handle using social media responsibly. But the solution to that problem isn't what would amount to a blanket ban on free speech. It's actually holding the people who lie and spread misinformation accountable for spreading lies and misinformation, but unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
Probably going to require a multifaceted approach, honestly. Education, further limiting what Free Speech protects, materially punishing the transgressors, etc.