My preferred route is a system of individual tax credits, say $100 per person, to support the person’s favorite news outlet(s).
That just seems like publicly funded media or public broadcasting with extra steps, but worse.
Until this year, we had pretty good public broadcasting.
Some people don’t have $100 to spend or far higher priorities for that spending than media.
Issuing the government an interest-free loan by spending & waiting until tax refunds to get paid back isn’t changing that.
This skews media influence toward those with more disposable income, ie, the wealthier.
Publicly funded media simply transfers proportionately more income from the wealthy to local & public media without their say on the matter: better.
It would be great to reform Section 230
FUCK that noise.
That’d just ensure overmoderated hellscapes like reddit many of us on lemmy made a point of leaving.
Smaller, mostly passive, decentralized social media would get sued into shit.
The unplanned content produced by random members of the public on social media is entirely unlike the professionally produced & curated content of publishers & broadcast media companies.
None of the ideological bias the article criticizes would be affected by such reform, since ideological bias alone isn’t a matter of credible litigation even with such reforms.
Illegal content is already removed.
The argument really looks like a thin pretense to obstruct the free flow of information & free speech with a hostile regulatory environment that’d make systems of open, public commentary prohibitively expensive & impractical to operate except for the largest, wealthiest companies run by the types of plutocrats the article purports to oppose.
Major social media isn’t actively producing the ideological content that leftists oppose.
It’s more actively curating & arranging commentary from the public to engage users or fit their preferences, thus amplifying their biases.
Even if we dislike that, in a free society people are entitled to have it.
Less sophisticated, passive social media systems don’t do this at all, yet they’d be held liable just the same for the voices of the public they don’t truly control unless they review every comment before posting it.
That’s altogether untenable for open, free discourse in the public.
Section 230 is right to place liability on content producers, and it should be strengthened if anything.
In a free society, silencing others is not the way to rationally settle arguments.
Everyone has a voice to express their disagreement & raise better points.
I see staggering deficiencies in the left using their voice effectively when everyone is permitted to express their objectionable ideas.
Instead of cowering away to safe spaces like immature ninnies needing constant validation, they have the power to stand up for their convictions & defend them.
Not enough people are doing that.
It would also be good if progressives stopped viewing it as gauche to file defamation lawsuits.
It would be good if a meaningful number of progressives actually used their free speech where it’s needed instead of retreating to environments where everyone agrees with them.
I know the standard line is that we counter lies with more speech; but save that for the kindergarten class.
No, whoever wrote that is unwilling to seriously engage in public disagreement in free society: ad hominem or appeal to the stone fallacy.
That just seems like publicly funded media or public broadcasting with extra steps, but worse. Until this year, we had pretty good public broadcasting.
Some people don’t have $100 to spend or far higher priorities for that spending than media. Issuing the government an interest-free loan by spending & waiting until tax refunds to get paid back isn’t changing that. This skews media influence toward those with more disposable income, ie, the wealthier.
Publicly funded media simply transfers proportionately more income from the wealthy to local & public media without their say on the matter: better.
FUCK that noise. That’d just ensure overmoderated hellscapes like reddit many of us on lemmy made a point of leaving.
Smaller, mostly passive, decentralized social media would get sued into shit. The unplanned content produced by random members of the public on social media is entirely unlike the professionally produced & curated content of publishers & broadcast media companies. None of the ideological bias the article criticizes would be affected by such reform, since ideological bias alone isn’t a matter of credible litigation even with such reforms. Illegal content is already removed.
The argument really looks like a thin pretense to obstruct the free flow of information & free speech with a hostile regulatory environment that’d make systems of open, public commentary prohibitively expensive & impractical to operate except for the largest, wealthiest companies run by the types of plutocrats the article purports to oppose.
Major social media isn’t actively producing the ideological content that leftists oppose. It’s more actively curating & arranging commentary from the public to engage users or fit their preferences, thus amplifying their biases. Even if we dislike that, in a free society people are entitled to have it. Less sophisticated, passive social media systems don’t do this at all, yet they’d be held liable just the same for the voices of the public they don’t truly control unless they review every comment before posting it. That’s altogether untenable for open, free discourse in the public.
Section 230 is right to place liability on content producers, and it should be strengthened if anything.
In a free society, silencing others is not the way to rationally settle arguments. Everyone has a voice to express their disagreement & raise better points. I see staggering deficiencies in the left using their voice effectively when everyone is permitted to express their objectionable ideas. Instead of cowering away to safe spaces like immature ninnies needing constant validation, they have the power to stand up for their convictions & defend them. Not enough people are doing that.
It would be good if a meaningful number of progressives actually used their free speech where it’s needed instead of retreating to environments where everyone agrees with them.
No, whoever wrote that is unwilling to seriously engage in public disagreement in free society: ad hominem or appeal to the stone fallacy.
Altogether, trash article with trash opinion.