Stream your PBS favorites with the PBS app: https://to.pbs.org/2Jb8twGFind more from PBS NewsHour at https://www.pbs.org/newshourSubscribe to our YouTube cha...
there are lots of ways to do this, but government-issued online ID is probably the way to go to figure out if you are talking to a human or a muppet (I’d prefer to have a private info “wallet” which is rendered and validated, but never stored anywhere but by me). I think of it as an internet driver’s license. You can still post anonymously in places like reddit, lemmy and 4chan, but nobody has to take anything you say seriously.
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.
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.
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.
if these platforms are not reigned in, the internet will die anyway…just a few walled fiefdoms that will dominate all markets and public spheres in the world.
there are lots of ways to do this, but government-issued online ID is probably the way to go to figure out if you are talking to a human or a muppet (I’d prefer to have a private info “wallet” which is rendered and validated, but never stored anywhere but by me). I think of it as an internet driver’s license. You can still post anonymously in places like reddit, lemmy and 4chan, but nobody has to take anything you say seriously.
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.
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.
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.
if these platforms are not reigned in, the internet will die anyway…just a few walled fiefdoms that will dominate all markets and public spheres in the world.
… You’re literally on lemmy right now. That’s as anti-walled garden fiefdom as you can get.
How good for us enlightned ones who escaped the matrix. I guess the internet won’t die for us :/ problem solved.