Law obliges social media platforms to remove illegal content – with fears that interview will give Russian leader propaganda coup

Tucker Carlson interview with Putin to test EU law regulating tech companies::Law obliges social media platforms to remove illegal content – with fears that interview will give Russian leader propaganda coup

  • aelwero@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    11 months ago

    Ok, well it was intended to be an opinion, so your assertion that I’m incorrect is incorrect because its my opinion, but that aside, which part?

    I reiterate that question because if your opinion is in direct opposition to mine, it is, in my opinion, the one I would most like to hear. I’m a moderate/centrist/libertarian(non-party) and I’d unironically and unsarcastically love to hear your opinion on it. Unless you’re just being a pedant, then I’ll listen and I respect your right to posit any pedantic objections, but I won’t really care much :)

      • aelwero@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        11 months ago

        Sounds an awful lot like sticking your head in the sand.

        “Social media” is going to be whatever they decide they want government oversight on… Not being part of the introductory offer isnt a very good reason to accept it in my opinion.

        They’ll come for your forum eventually…

              • aelwero@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here (I’m totally fine with this personally, no animosity intended at all, I like discourse and you don’t seem like you’re being a dick about it, so we’re on friendly terms here from my perspective)

                Do you not think that government determination of what is or is not acceptable on “social media” (quotes because generalizing) is eerily similar to thoughtcrime? And an orwellian policy? Making a 1984 reference in its defense a little ironic?

                I realize I discounted the bulk of your comment and all the “logical fallacy” buzz phrases you threw in, but I generally consider that pedantry and responding to it would bring in bad vibes on my side, so I skipped it, sorry. I can engage it, but I won’t have anything to say on it worth reading, it’ll just be old guy bullshit…

                  • aelwero@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Ultimately, what I’m asking you is: why would I be opposed to a law that itself is 100% fine, just because the same legislators might later pass a different law that I don’t like?

                    Ultimately because the basic premise of the law could (in general) be the basis for the government to remove our entire conversation here…

                    It is potentially a tool to do this

                    In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true.

                    I don’t object for the sake of my my benefit, I object for the sake of yours (everyone).

                    I see it a one degree increment on the proverbial frog in the proverbial pot, being slowly but surely brought to boil and it’s death, and I don’t really care who it affects in the moment.

    • GeneralVincent@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      “me talking out my ass about the law is just my opinion, you can’t argue with me now”

      Not how that works at all