[biglearner1day]

> It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power.

It amazes me that we let social media platforms run freely with whichever narrative, ideology they enforce. Government influence has in most cases a negative outcome, but letting these platforms, especially ones at the scale of Twitter and Facebook, act freely is unwise.

[scarface74]

So instead we give government more power to control the narrative? Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative.

Would you also want the government to control RedState? FoxNews? Truth Socisl?

[biglearner1day]

I was not disagreeing with you in the initial reply, two things can be true at the same time.

Like I said; government influence has a negative outcome in most cases, but allowing social media platforms to do as they wish is a recipe for disaster if we're not there already.

> Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative

I'm sure the ideological left appreciates the social media platform's bias towards their progressive ideology. It's equally wrong if they had a different bias. You, we, need to stop being divisive, it's toxic.

[scarface74]

So no matter how bad you believe private corporations are at controlling the narrative. Do you think having government control is better?

[biglearner1day]

Please don't pull a Cathy Newman.

Like I said, for the third time: government influence has a negative outcome in most cases. I'm not sure how you got to a different conclusion.

The government should keep social media platforms in check and protect their citizens against censorship (in any form, as long as it is lawful) on large, influential platforms.

[scarface74]

So in fact, you do want the same government to “keep social media in check” that in another story that was on the front page was the government encouraging social media to censor speech? Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics? Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?

You said yourself it would be a “negative outcome”.

The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity. They literally named a law “Stop Woke”.

[biglearner1day]

I think that the last sentence already answered all the questions you just asked.

"The government should keep social media platforms in check and protect their citizens against censorship (in any form, as long as it is lawful) on large, influential platforms."

> Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics?

If we were talking politics and Dang would censor anyone because of their ideology, yes, the government should set laws in place against that.

> Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?

No.

> You said yourself it would be a “negative outcome”.

Yes, stop misinterpreting it, I had expanded on it in the same sentence.

> The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity

You mean the same law that "prohibits teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others"? The same law that prevents schools and business from reducing a person to just their race to assign labels of privileges regardless of all the nuances that make up an individual?

Good, stop justifying prejudice.