Throwway32
It's a pity that social networks don't require this as part of their TOS. There are a number of high profile accounts on Twitter, for example, that seem to leverage their follower counts and blue checkmarks to promote propaganda for the highest bidder (and they have multiple admins on supposed verified individual accounts, churning out said propaganda 24x7).
There are creative ways to hide the payments, such as using books authored by the influencers, but that's another discussion.
These networks have been curated from the get-go, for no reason other than to control spam. Then, to keep people hooked, they emphasized virality and controversy. These aspects make them quite unlike a town square.
[1] My personal opinion is that praising terror and “inspiring” others is not free speech, but I don’t pretend otherwise
I wonder what US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki would have said to that argument. The truth is that political free speech has limits, even for the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...
Please point out a single society that has upheld absolute Free Speech as a principle for any significant period of time.
The United States has even killed its own citizens when their free speech collided with national security: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...
If you made pro-ISIS materials, you can expect the US government to closely monitor you, and quite likely attempt to entrap you.[1]
If you made large numbers of pro-ISIS videos, even if you were a US citizen, there would be a strong possibility that you would be killed [2]
[1] https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/07/fbi_arrest_of_clevel...
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...
Brandenberg v Ohio dates back to 1969. That was only 50 years ago.
The US Supreme Court only set the modern boundaries for freedom of speech in Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969.
It's a modern American stance that dates back to the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The reason that this particular standard for free speech, formulated by the US Supreme Court has permeated segments of the English-speaking world is an example of the cultural dominance of the United States, and internet culture.
Besides bin Laden, another even more striking case is the cleric, a US citizen, who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen because of his advocacy of violence. And no sane person who values their freedom, in the English-speaking west, would dare advocate on behalf of ISIS today.
No society in human history has permitted absolute free speech, and the United States doesn't either.
I wouldn’t trust them either, at this point.
I don't know about that. In the real world, there are homicidal maniacs, deranged ideologues trying to incite violence, paid propaganda outfits, state actors who masquerade as legitimate voices. If allowing them free rein is the price for "freedom", I'd rather have a little less freedom, because that sort of freedom is unsustainable and will, inevitably, destroy itself.
It's telling that even in the "land of the free" members of certain groups are proscribed from expressing their vilest and most murderous ideas without heavy-handed state intervention (to the point that some have been killed by drones for doing so), while other groups openly flaunt similar ideas, and hide behind "free speech" when anyone dares to criticize them.