MrSlovenia

Better question: are we willing to risk it just because some who-know-how-much-p-hacked study said so?

Honestly that sounds like an excuse to do nothing, that you are not truly serious about it.

The last best time was yestrday. The next best one is now.

Makes sense: when a country has an industrial revolution it just wants to grow fast.

Then when the extreme growth part passes it starts to stabilize: this is when the country & the people start doing well enough so that they can look at other issues (environmental impact) without having to sacrifice their livelihoods.

The human will always prioritize his own and his families livelihood. Only once that is stable can one afford to look at the impact.

If you're poor and can hardly afford basic stuff for your children you obviously won't care about the environment, it's last thing on your mind.

And if anyone writes "yeah but even poor people should care": no, that is not how human nature works. First you & your family, only then everything else.

Good point.

There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users.

Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views.

So a "must be a large social network or forum" must be a requirement in this law.

If Tweeter, Google or FB tried to push their agenda they could do it easily. Obviously fringe/small forums must be exempt.

If that will be the case then it's: a) a bad law b) institutions are corrupt: which means that no matter who is leading the goverment free speech will always be policed. And if the institutions really are that corrupt...well...then we're f* anyway

In that case the people could just file a joint lawsuit because their (non-governement) views have been censored.

A lot of outrage on reddit. But it seems that this is not a censorship law at all: instead it makes social media sites liable to be sued if they remove political content they don't agree it.

So it's more a free speech law that avoids censorship.

Copy paste from a reddit comment:

Since no one apparently read the article or paid attention to the actually meaningful quote:

The draft "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms."

In other words, this isn't about the federal government removing content. It is about the extent to which social media platforms are legally shielded from lawsuits when they choose to remove content.

The "worst case scenario" of this leaked draft isn't the federal government picks and chooses what content is censored—it's that platforms might have to allow almost every kind of content or risk being sued. Which is the opposite of censorship.

(Please note: I am not arguing in favor of this draft. Only pointing out what it is actually saying sans the rampant fear-mongering going on right now.)