Your argument is built upon the position that it would be impossible to guarantee the veracity when it just is not the case. Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.
If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible why cant the richest organisations on the planet be held to the same, or preferrably a higher, satandard?
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.
Your argument is built upon the position that it would be impossible to guarantee the veracity when it just is not the case. Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.
If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible why cant the richest organisations on the planet be held to the same, or preferrably a higher, satandard?
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.
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.
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.