• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    45 months ago

    Or instead of increased spying and mass surveillance, they could actually enforce the laws we have now instead of admitting they fucked up and haven’t even tried out the current setup.

    Complaining that the current laws dont work and need to be replaced with authoritarian mass surveillance when they haven’t even TRIED to actually enforce the current laws is a bad look.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I see your angle now, I don’t think it would need to be more mass surveillance than it already is, but understand why enthusiasm for these hearings could be damped by that waryness.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        We don’t need ‘slightly more’ or ‘the same amount’ of mass surveillance, we need drastically less.

        More to the point, there’s no actual guarantee that repealing section 230 will have it actually be replaced by anything, which would effectively kill free speech on the internet, if not actually kill the internet itself.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          if these platforms are not reigned (might as well spell it like that given their regning attitude) reined in, the internet will die anyway…just a few walled fiefdoms that will dominate all markets and public spheres in the world.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -15 months ago

            … You’re literally on lemmy right now. That’s as anti-walled garden fiefdom as you can get.

            • @[email protected]OP
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              How good for us enlightned ones who escaped the matrix. I guess the internet won’t die for us :/ problem solved.