|
|
|
|
|
|
by leeoniya
1993 days ago
|
|
|
most things you quote do not apply to a society where you can reach 70 million people, effortlessly and immediately with 0 cost. 200 years ago there was no way to easily impersonate via a fake video, photo, or recording. wax seals were used to prove authenticity of official mail. > However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another? like they have been doing since they have existed? i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country. |
|
|
>i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.
No I was saying if the provider of printing to say your local news paper was friends with the Mayor and there was a corruption story, and they opted to decline the business of the local newspaper and refuse to print it.
Not every newspaper owns their own printing.
I hear what you're saying, I'm just saying the laws need to catch up, we can't depend on each company being socially pressured to do this or that. If we regulate the internet like a utility then we need to move to that world.