Same goes for the right to free speech.
For example, if someone is broadcasting to 1 million people, their message should adhere to some standards. If something is really a popular message, it can be spread using "totally protected" speech to up to 1000 people at a time. I think giving a platform to ISIS and others to easily spread their mind virus and continually infect some susceptible 0.1% is irresponsible. Inciting violence on public television would have been unacceptable and regulated.
It's an economic concept known as the free rider problem. If you guarantee total protection to speech for ANY number of recipients, people and organizations will find ways to abuse it. The free tier should be limited.
Ideas replicating, on the other hand, is only limited by the amount of attention / allegiance any given person has. The only way we'll get a free rider problem there is when computers spread ideas among each other like computer viruses. And for that, we need to secure our protocols and implementations.
I don't agree with that statement at any level! Those 1 million people have absolute freedom to listen or to not listen. This puts you in the position of telling people they can't hear something they want to hear.
As a bonus, those standards you mention can easily become a cudgel against people the government wants to implicitly or explicitly silence.
The government won't be able to silence a true message that doesn't "hijack mass media" and spreads by 1-to-1000 at a time.
Do you realize that at one point you yourself could be in a position where you disagree with your government and you want to speak up only to find your message being silenced constantly?
Either all people are equal or they are not, some people can not be more equal than others.
When you let mass media be used by ISIS and others in the name of free speech, you're giving them a free way to do super-untargeted advertising to their new recruits.
People can choose what to hear. It's not random, It's the complete opposite of random.
Anyway you haven't addressed the downsides I posted. All you do is ignore them in favor of the upsides. I could be an anarcho capitalist and insist on the unlimited right to property, also. Saying it's a moral right and ignoring any downsides.
The mass media has a responsibility all right, but not the one you think they do.
And what do you think their responsibility actually is? I thought they had rights to say whatever they want and responsibility is optional...
And I think their responsibility is the conditions under which they were given broadcast licenses in the first place. Something about serving the public good.
And we are not talking 0.1%, we are talking about a lot less than 1 in 1000 and that is important here. I strongly believe that taking freedom away, i.e. by prescribing what the standards are that messages should adhere to, will breed disrespect, anger, hate, feelings of oppression.
A mind virus does not ignite among happy, free people, it ignites among oppressed people. We should avoid oppressing people.
You determine who is a criminal so you determine who has the right to privacy? Maybe you are a reasonable person but I think it is naive to operate under the assumption that governments/judges will always be reasonable. I think indeed that you may be spied upon when you are suspect of a crime but to force Whatsapp to store all messages (diminishing everyone's privacy) due to a couple of criminals sounds like a bad idea to me.
So the right to privacy should be absolute, until you disrespect other people's rights (the only thing that should be a crime). So do good policing, don't take privacy away from innocent, free (wo)men.