New bill to control online speech. Digital Platform Commission Act of 2022

Link to bill.

The unregulated policies and operations of some of the most powerful digital platforms have at times produced demonstrable harm, including— (B) abetting the collapse of trusted local journalism; (D) disseminating disinformation and hate speech; … (F) in some cases, radicalizing individuals to violence.

So.. to they don’t like that we can get our news from non government/msm controlled news sources and be able to post our own opinions about them that don’t fit their narrative.

I never thought our country could fall so far. Literally opposite our constitution.

For the record, screw both Democrats and Republicans trying to take away our freedoms.

hate speech does not in any way shape or form, lead to violence in real life

losers want to censor online because they can't compete otherwise. no tangible talents

porn, political debate, etc...

how about the government butt out and let people decide what they will look at and discuss? you empty suits have become obsolete, so dont go changing the rues and trying to shut people up now, jackasses

Sadly, they used the word TRUST IN THE BILL.

a reply to: pianopraze

It's happening in a lot of different countries ... Here's the similar bill in progress for Ireland:

Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022

In this bill even possession or access of non MSM (approved) content could be banned and the defendant is assumed guilty and must prove innocence. Of course it doesn't frame it like that, it's there to protect people, but they can shuffle the goal posts after implementation because what is harmful will be determinable by the state.

1984 was supposed to be read as fiction, not as an Instruction Manual!

a reply to: pianopraze

These are their goals and I am sure it will be a work in progress:

The unregulated policies and operations of some of the most powerful digital platforms have at times produced demonstrable harm, including—

(A) undercutting small businesses;

(B) abetting the collapse of trusted local journalism;

(C) enabling addiction and other harms to the mental health of the people of the United States, especially minors;

(D) disseminating disinformation and hate speech;

(E) undermining privacy and monetizing the personal data of individuals in the United States without their informed consent; and

(F) in some cases, radicalizing individuals to violence.

(from your link)

There is a lot not there that is to be desired.

a reply to: pianopraze

(DRA 1899) Proverbs 8:13, "The fear of the Lord hateth evil: I hate arrogance, and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue."

Muh hateses speech because evil dragons. REEE and perish.
I'm telling you, the big club we are not in hates goodness.

a reply to: pianopraze

It's just a matter of time before they manage to get one of these Censorship bills through.

Every time one gets shot down another shows up under a new name.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: pianopraze

It's just a matter of time before they manage to get one of these Censorship bills through.

Every time one gets shot down another shows up under a new name.

I disagree, preventing harm is different from censorship, unless the censoring will prevent harm. They quite clearly use the term 'demonstratable harm' so there is that safety net.

Y’all still don’t think communists are running this country??

You were warned.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: pianopraze

It's just a matter of time before they manage to get one of these Censorship bills through.

Every time one gets shot down another shows up under a new name.

I disagree, preventing harm is different from censorship, unless the censoring will prevent harm. They quite clearly use the term 'demonstratable harm' so there is that safety net.

Don't be stupid.

a reply to: pianopraze

"abetting the collapse of trusted local journalism"

Wut ?

So, I guess we now have to forcibly subscribe to the local newspapers , regardless if we know that they publish false information.

"Journalists" have an unalienable right to brainwash us and we have to pay for that brainwashing as well



Democracy....democrat party style....

Totally censorship, and where will it end? People forget we have a right to free speech (1st). As long as we're not defaming someone or hurting someone by spreading lies, we should be allowed to keep saying what we want and when/where we want. This will not end well. I bet the USSR started out like this.

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: pianopraze

It's just a matter of time before they manage to get one of these Censorship bills through.

Every time one gets shot down another shows up under a new name.

I disagree, preventing harm is different from censorship, unless the censoring will prevent harm. They quite clearly use the term 'demonstratable harm' so there is that safety net.

Don't be stupid.

Don't be insulting. It's not stupid to see nobody is censoring anything at this point in time. Nothing has changed, only people taking action against the misuse of the freedom of speech.

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".[2]

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: quintessentone

The list of issues reads like an indictment of the internet itself.

Item (C) is a problem, particularly for minors. That's real. And what I am most concerned with.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: quintessentone

The list of issues reads like an indictment of the internet itself.

Item (C) is a problem, particularly for minors. That's real. And what I am most concerned with.

I get where you are going and if demonstratable harm is being done then the law will be applied. It will be interesting to see where this goes within all facets of the internet relating to minors - with parental approval? - without parental approval?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: quintessentone

The list of issues reads like an indictment of the internet itself.

Item (C) is a problem, particularly for minors. That's real. And what I am most concerned with.

I get where you are going and if demonstratable harm is being done then the law will be applied. It will be interesting to see where this goes within all facets of the internet relating to minors - with parental approval? - without parental approval?

When I see toddlers playing with a cell phone app to keep them quiet, I know that we are in deep kimchi. I don't have a solution, but see the outcome with the current crop of teens. It's troubling.

a reply to: pianopraze

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

a reply to: pianopraze
No thanks
The government can take its censorship and stick it up its butt.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: pianopraze

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So fundamentally basic, one would think a congressional rep would get that whole”shall make no law” part?

Who knew?