Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.8k
  • 117 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    V
    encourage innovation in the banking and financial system What "innovation" do we need in the banking system?
  • FREE BETTING TIPS-Draws

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 17 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    A
    Why would the article’s credited authors pass up the chance to improve their own health status and health satisfaction?
  • 138 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    141 Aufrufe
    S
    Nobody fucking cares.
  • Trump Mobile launches $47 service and a gold phone

    Technology technology
    129
    1
    357 Stimmen
    129 Beiträge
    499 Aufrufe
    S
    Why mention it? Because the media has a DUTY to call out a corrupt government! Because they're not doing their job!
  • 2 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 257 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    L
    Maybe you're right: is there verification? Neither content policy (youtube or tiktok) clearly lays out rules on those words. I only find unverified claims: some write it started at YouTube, others claim TikTok. They claim YouTube demonetizes & TikTok shadowbans. They generally agree content restrictions by these platforms led to the propagation of circumspect shit like unalive & SA. TikTok policy outlines their moderation methods, which include removal and ineligibility to the for you feed. Given their policy on self-harm & automated removal of potential violations, their policy is to effectively & recklessly censor such language. Generally, censorship is suppression of expression. Censorship doesn't exclusively mean content removal, though they're doing that, too. (Digression: revisionism & whitewashing are forms of censorship.) Regardless of how they censor or induce self-censorship, they're chilling inoffensive language pointlessly. While as private entities they are free to moderate as they please, it's unnecessary & the effect is an obnoxious affront on self-expression that's contorting language for the sake of avoiding idiotic restrictions.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    345 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.