They could only remove illegal content and spam. What do you guys think?

  • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    That’s the government’s entire responsibility regarding ‘free-speech’- to not make any laws restricting it. The idea that the government is responsible for protecting your speech by providing a safe space or protecting you from the public consequences of unpopular speech only started when conservatives realized a lot of their speech wasn’t popular anymore.

  • TehWorld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has to be the worst idea I’ve heard all week. The free market doesn’t want to hear hate speech and outright lies, which are the other things that might get censored currently.

    • dudebro@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t matter what the free market wants.

      What matters is the first amendment.

      • TehWorld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are free to say anything you like. I want no part in my tax dollars funding anyone’s speech.

        Besides, who sets the laws on what “illegal” speech looks like.

    • dudebro@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, considering how crucial social media has become for sharing ideas, the argument would be that the government should facilitate a way for everyone to have access to it.

      Having a few big companies control the narrative is hardly free speech.

      • rhacer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you are a conservative that means you believe government should be small. Adding government agencies and services is antithetical to that.

  • BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is this so you can spew more transphobic content without getting banned?

    Government run social media would be awful. There’s not a single upside to it. Everyone would be unhappy on that platform. Moderation would have to be so strict that it would stifle any conversation, and I guarantee one political side at all times would be yelling about how they’re being censored more than the other. Without moderation it’ll turn into a far right cesspool like every other unmoderated social media is.

    Also why would I hand my data directly to a government that I don’t trust? At least now they have to go through other companies and 3rd parties.