joey_diaz_wings
joey_diaz_wings t1_j9p2c07 wrote
Reply to comment by billetea in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
We don't need ideological curation, censors, or astroturfed conversations that limit the ideas people can discuss.
It's ultimately beneficial to humanity if people can communicate freely and naturally rather than in the tiny bubble of commercial discourse so ads can be sold. Repeating only permitted ideas is infantile.
joey_diaz_wings t1_j9ufmhp wrote
Reply to comment by billetea in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
We're already bound for idiocracy: look who breeds and who abstains. Demographics are destiny.
Idiots are already discussing idiotic topics when not consuming idiotic media. Accepting this, why not also allow intelligent people to discuss topics without imposing moderators who only permit opinions and ideas that can be accompanied by advertising revenue?
The idea of online "community standards" is absurd for large sites like Facebook. There is no community. People should be allowed to talk about topics of interest and organize however they like. We've even seen PayPal insist they are a "community" with standards that can impose financial penalties when people discuss ideas contrary to their baseless rules.
The crazies will do whatever they do. We should preserve some space for sane adults too where censors cannot intrude and silence us all to infantile norms.