Well sure but it isn't actually a closed question over whether these "meta" debates over legal principles are completely meaningless
-
-
I mean like, I don't know. I understand the difficulties at play here and I'm certainly not an architect of policy. I just refuse to accept that NOTHING can be done other than to hope changing social forces eventually diminish its viability
-
I agree with your point and am similarly stumped for how you'd write more sensible policy. Fox News is bad, but how exactly do you ban it without opening the door to banning unpopular but good things?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How about.... 1. cannot misrepresent an image. It is easy enough to check an image source. 2. Must clarify boundaries between news and opinion and be held accountable for what they call news. 3. Must cease and desist a talking point that can be disproven in court. Idk.
-
I mean, that’s how it works now. It is hard to get people to shut up and that sucks. The families of kids killed in mass shootings are targets for propagandists. But the media also amplifies those voices by choice. They’ve adapted for virality, so the worst stuff leads.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.