[scarface_74]

So out of all the things that are “controlling people’s minds” - drugs, alcohol, pay to win games, gambling sites, and the US news media, that’s where you draw the line?

What’s next, we are going to ban EU media because they may influence people with their evil socialist agenda?

Last I checked, it wasn’t Chinese media that riled up a bunch of yokels to storm the Capital and has a large percentage of the population thinking that the “election was stolen”

[ryandrake]

> So out of all the things that are “controlling people’s minds” - drugs, alcohol, pay to win games, gambling sites, and the US news media, that’s where you draw the line?

I mean, all these things, if not banned, should at least be subject to regulatory limits. The concern is not the content itself, but the downstream effects on the population. We tolerate regulation on drugs, alcohol and gambling because of the serious negative aggregate effects they have on society. A democratic society based on rule of law should be able to collectively decide that the negative effects of some thing do not justify people's freedoms to do that thing. Without that principle, we might as well live in anarchy.

[scarface_74]

So do we really regulate that alcohol can’t be sold on Sundays because of the downstream effects or is it because of religion? Why would regulating of TikTok or other media not be based on the political leanings of whoever in power?

We also didn’t start regulating weed because of health concerns. It was because of racism.

https://time.com/5572691/420-marijuana-mexican-immigration/

How do you choose not to regulate content and still regulate its downstream effects? How is this different from when Tipper Gore wanted to regulate “violent video games” and rap music?

[ryandrake]

This comment is all over the place, but I think even the people motivated by religion and racism still justify their support of regulation with (at least perceived) negative effects on society. We can agree or disagree with them. Clearly minds are slowly changing on alcohol, drugs, and gambling.

Minds are changing on content and free speech, too. 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities[1] and the trend by age cohort is very clear and swift. We may disagree but we old people are aging out. Another poll[2] shows 61 percent of Americans agree that free speech should be restricted, and 51 percent believe that the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, should be rewritten to reflect the new cultural norms of today.

I don't think you can regulate the downstream effects of content without regulating the content. Its up to a democratic society to decide whether one outweighs the other.

1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-mil...

2: http://campaignforfreespeech.org/new-poll-free-speech-under-...

[scarface_74]

> This comment is all over the place, but I think even the people motivated by religion and racism still justify their support of regulation with (at least perceived) negative effects on society.

Is that suppose to be some type of justification for regulation - “because Jesus said so”?

> Its up to a democratic society to decide whether one outweighs the other.

You mean the same democratic society that made non heterosexual sex, interracial marriage, and Jim Crow illegal?

I would much rather give the government less power and you should to. No matter what side you are on, eventually someone on the opposite side is going to come along and use that power in a way that you don’t like.

[Dan_Sylveste]

> EU media

> socialist agenda?

There isn't a single country in the EU that's in any meaningful way 'socialist'.

Stop derailing.

As to your last point: approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?

[scarface_74]

I agree completely - EU isn’t socialist. Do you think that right wing conservatives feel the same way? You see what happens when you give the government power to decide what should and shouldn’t be seen?

And you sound a lot like the federal government when they wanted to ban NWA because they said they were putting police in danger.

So now it’s okay to ban platforms that cause “bad things” to go viral? Is media also to blame for Jan 6th?

[Dan_Sylveste]

> So now it’s okay to ban platforms that cause “bad things” to go viral?

I think if platforms habitually or consistently cause 'bad things' to go viral then the ownership and management of those platforms should be examined, and if it's determined that their ownership/management may be beholden to interests contrary to the welfare of the nation then sanctions should be applied, which may or may not include a ban.

There are well understood exceptions to free speech and freedom of association that apply to the ownership and control of companies that could significantly affect the welfare of the nation. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy

Please answer the questions that were put to you:

Approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?

[scarface_74]

> I think if platforms habitually or consistently cause 'bad things' to go viral then the ownership and management of those platforms should be examined, and if it's determined that their ownership/management may be beholden to interests contrary to the welfare of the nation then sanctions should be applied, which may or may not include a ban.

Who gets to decide and are you okay with people who have opposite political beliefs than you having the power to make that decision?

> Approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?

I don’t know. If you’re okay with holding TikTok liable are you also okay with holding conservative media liable for January 6th?

Would you have been okay with the government banning Doom because they think playing video games causes mass shootings?

Do you think we should sue the gun manufacturers for shootings?

In no other area of society do we think anyone should be blamed for criminal activities besides the criminals.

[Dan_Sylveste]

> Who gets to decide

A bipartisan committee will suffice.

> holding conservative media liable

The subject is foreign adversaries, not domestic strife. Let's not get derailed.

> the government banning Doom

The subject is foreign adversaries

> sue the gun manufacturers

The subject is foreign adversaries

> In no other area of society

Yes, we absolutely do. When companies bring out predatory sales techniques (such as lootboxes in video games) these techniques absolutely do attract oversight, sanctions and - in cases - outright bans. It's well recognised that people can be led astray and there are many legal avenues available to prevent significant impact.

[scarface_74]

> A bipartisan committee will suffice.

A bipartisan “Right Think” committee of officials get to come together and decide what media should be banned? How would that have worked out if those commie sympathizers who were trying to get the good Black folks in the south to rise up against segregation?

> The subject is foreign adversaries

So you’re okay with domestic adversaries like the ones who invaded the capital because they were riled up by domestic media?

> When companies bring out predatory sales techniques

Aren’t all addictive substances “predatory”? Do you think we should bring back Prohibition