Sup Forums we all know that Social Media sites like Twitter and Facebook are liberal biased as fuck.
A solution for this could be to create a conservative version of said sites. That being said, that aint a good solution cause it will end polarizing people even more.
Instead what about making Social Media sites public spaces? If they were public spaces then they couldn't ban someone for offensive speech.
Other urls found in this thread:
Quit posting this shit on Sup Forums, reported.
Also they are owned corporations, I hope this question wasn't genuine.
>getting triggered by a SFW picture of a beautiful girl
Low test cuck detected.
Social Media are the 21st century version of a town hall or park.
They should be protected as such and not let biased owners dictate their own agenda.
>posting degenerate shit on Sup Forums
>retarded puerto rican detected
no, they're not. they're not at all like that.
retard
They are not considered de jure that but de facto many people treat it at such. There should be a law that protects free speech on social media in order to make sure nobody gets banned for wrong speak.
>what is a false equivalence
They are not publicly owned.
It's a private corporation you nigger.
Why should there be a law like that?
how do you have internet on an island?
>to make sure no one gets banned for wrong speak
You mean social media sites where there's no censorship (for the most part)?
You're in one
banned by whom?
Obviously anyone with the abilities to ban someone.
Doesnt matter. Private Corporations Plazas are considered public spaces and can't ban people from protesting as long as they are in the public space.
>I can't read, the post
Even Sup Forums mods can ban you if they wanted. In practice they are usually hands off but the couple of times they used their authority we all felt the repercussions. For example this flags were put by moot when he was triggered when Sup Forums called him a cuck.
by the mods of the sites. Twitter for example banned Azealia Banks from twitter for wrong speak. They removed the verified account logo from Milo for the same reason.
Basically if you are conservative Twitter, Facebook and the like will silence you.
How about you make your own site instead of telling others how to use the sites they OWN stupid dumbass? How old are you even?
so what?
i'm sure conservatives are plenty smart enough to create their own sites
they are good at math and stuff
>A solution for this could be to create a conservative version of said sites. That being said, that aint a good solution cause it will end polarizing people even more.
Learn to read Chespirito.
It does matter you retard. Quit using a false equivalency.
You literally answered your own question, public space = can do shit, private space = owners can do whatever they want as far as denying anyone the use of their service/building etc
>A solution for this could be to create a conservative version of said sites. That being said, that aint a good solution cause it will end polarizing people even more.
My proposal is to make a law that turns large social media sites into public spaces meaning that sites can't ban someone for wrong speak.
Once again, conservatives crying about opposing views and wanting a safe space all while ignoring their own hypocrisy.
>My proposal to Sup Forums to make a law because I want to force others to do what I think is better
Go back to school kid.
You mean to steal. That's what you are saying, you want a law that allows the government to steal privately owned corporations from their rightful owners so people don't get banned for saying something.
Disgusting strawman.
I don't even like this persons idea but you are a special kind of stupid.
My proposal is the opposite of a safe space you dipshit. I want facebook and twitter to be public spaces in order to tear down the safe spaces they are creating.
In a public space you can say w/e but someone else can call you out because of it.
People would still be able to block others if they wanted but not allow twitter or facebook to silence opinions they don't agree with.
>it will end up polarizing people even more than forcing private companies to bend to the will of the government
>puerto rico
The role of government is to protect the freedom of the people. Twitter and Facebook are modern day public spaces in practice but by law they are allowed to silence dissenting opinion. It's within the power of government to make sure the people are allowed to express themselves w/o being silenced.
What you and other people are saying is that we should create a conservative social media site. That will create a safe space where dissenting opinions will be silenced, but instead of conservatives being silenced it will be liberals. This will be toxic because liberals and conservatives wont intermingle and wont have their views challenged. And in a free market place of ideas it's imperative to have our views challenged.
THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC SPACES.
Read the thread. I'm not saying they are public spaces by law but that they are treated as such by the people.
Because the people use social media as public spaces I believe the laws should reflect that and make it official. If social media sites were public spaces by law then they couldnt silence wrong speak. That is what I want.
No they are not.
They are private corporations. End of discussion.
>free market
>forceful laws against markets already existing
holy shit it's A New Kind Of Economics®™
you must be buddies with John Gabriel and Stephen Wolfram
If they can ban people, and thus ban people, they're not working as public spaces either in theory or in practice. They're nothing like public spaces and they have never been.
Imagine that I go and graffiti the wall of your cuckshed with whatever propaganda, and then 100 people come and do the same. It's being treated as a public space by people even thought it's not one, Explain why there shouldn't be a law forbidding you from painting over our graffiti and destroying our freedom of expression. You're a retard.
>being this dense
What part of that I know they arent by law public spaces don't you understand?
We are moving past that point. I know facebook and twitter are publicly traded companies owned by private individuals. But that still doesnt give them the right to silence individuals that use their service. My proposal is to make the service they provide into a public space were while still owned by private individuals can't intrude into the freedoms of others. Facebook and twitter can still make money from ad revenue and manage the site as they see fit. But they can't silence opinions that are wrong speak.
It wouldn't change shit desu fampai.
The reason those websites are so biased boils down to essentially this concept: people are not anonymous on those.
They keep their speech in check, hide their real ideas, lie, because their very reputation is at stake. So they try to be politically correct, they like the Chinese landslide page because otherwise people would have to point the finger at them, because that's politically correct. They support gays and trannies and fucking brain dead retards with severe psychological problems, because if they don't, they'll be labeled as transphobes and homophobes.
This place proudly bears its name: it is the land of the politically incorrect, we don't care what others think, we only express our very own opinion. Because we are anonymous. We are not held accountable for our words, attacks can never reach us because no one knows who we are, and everyone hates us because secretly many agree with us, but they can't openly say it, plus we have a freedom of speech they don't have. Just look at the fappening: the whole world shat on Sup Forums for being no other than the coincidental host of those pics, yet FUCKING EVERYONE saw those pics, when no one had to.
Identity-based social networks are a cancer. We need to abolish those and establish nothing but anonymous/pseudonymous forums, it's the only way out.
>calling me the dense one
Broder, they are private companies and they can do whatever they want and have rights to what people post in many cases. And of course, they can get paid to silence certain opinions. Legally, I don't see what you suggest ever happening.
The only option is a social network where such censorship can't exist, like diaspora gaining popularity diasporafoundation.org
but people are scared of backlash so will always flock to what's already popular and say what's more acceptable rather than the truth.
But let's pretend they actually make such a law, let's call it the Cyber Free Speech Act (CFSA) and it's in the US. Users that get censored in the US may be able to get their messages back under the CFSA, but users from Europe won't be able to do shit. Hell, they might still be able to prevent the European users from seeing the messages.
>you want a law that allows the government to steal privately owned corporations from their rightful owners so people don't get banned for saying something.
Yes.
Speech rights > Property rights.
>But let's pretend they actually make such a law, let's call it the Cyber Free Speech Act (CFSA) and it's in the US. Users that get censored in the US may be able to get their messages back under the CFSA, but users from Europe won't be able to do shit. Hell, they might still be able to prevent the European users from seeing the messages.
That could be a start. Not all countries value free speech like we do.
>we
I see you came here after Gamergate happened.
Where even saying GG would autosage a thread.
No, we need a neutral battleground.
We especially need Journalists that post sourced facts and facts only, like it was their original job description.
Free of interpretation and bias.
And we need an open, uncensored forum.
Maybe with a slashdot-like moderation system where only 5% of the (randomly selected users) get 5 Moderation points every couple of weeks, this makes it impossible to downvote "uncomfortable" comments by swarimg them with fake accounts.
But here in Sup Forums the situation is alright, if you manage to blend out 99% of the content that is crap. Picture related.
Nah, the solution is to have the government run twitter and Facebook.
Technically you could let them be run by an independent trust along the lines of the BBC.
Then at least you know when it's compromised.
>triggered nofap user
you can have self control, you know?
>We especially need Journalists that post sourced facts and facts only
And then they end up referencing each other, while new, interesting subjects are ignored because they are so out of this world, there is nothing similar that can be referenced.
Ideally, we need all possible systems to exist and coexist, because any system has weak points, any system can be derailed.
Name of semen demon?
vk.com
/thread
No, another Journalist is not a source.
A source for a crime report for example, is the actual written report from the police, or the interview with the police chief, or the official state/country crime stats and data.
Vk is cancerous. Good luck with finding a mail order bride though
The only way this would be possible if, like town halls and parks, social media sites were owned and maintained by the government.
But then all you conservacucks would be yelling "MUH SMALL GOVERNMENT!!" and crying big crocodile tears, wouldn't you?
the internet by its very nature is anti-tradition, anti-morality, anti-social. It has a liberal bias not just because of the content and the companies/governments pushing it but because of the medium itself which separates people from shame and real socialization.
read Ted Kaczynski
really, the only solution is ban the internet from home/social media use ENTIRELY. Yes, that means Sup Forums, Sup Forums is part of the same societal ill. Once people have to talk in real life civil situations there will automatically be more conservative views because conservative views support physical reality.
Arguing on the internet means you're already on THEIR turf, liberals and degenerates have everything to gain by hiding behind a screen, whereas TRUE moral people have less to hide