Consept

So are you saying there are no dangers to blanket free speech, aside from what you mentioned previously about screaming fire in a theatre?

Hopefully one day humans will get to a point where they don't need any rules and their consciousness is high enough where it's not really an issue. Kind of like if you have a kid that's really responsible, you don't need to give them rules really. But I commend you on being open to a different perspective, that's what this forum is about

Laws won't save you, Russia specifically did this through 3rd parties to avoid detection and they definitely could've gotten away with it. Apart from espionage, there are people within the society who could promote lies, hate speech etc in an effort to gain power or radicalise people for their own purposes. Think about the fact that most school shooters or mass murderers, have some distorted, hateful ideology that they picked up from the internet. These are all very real problems that are not simple to deal with. The sort of free speech you're talking about could only exist successfully if there weren't any bad faith actors. Using the forum as an example, if Leo didn't have any rules and regulations, it would work if everyone was posting in good faith and not attacking each other. But in reality if there were no rules and regulations it would attract all sorts of people spamming the forum, if Leo relaxed all rules for a week the site would be unusable and everyone would leave. This is even more important in wider society otherwise society would be unlivable. People that talk about we should be free from government control, don't actually understand the freedom afforded to you by the government, in that they protect your freedom from others. Without that you wouldn't 'have' anything.

When you're paid to say stuff like "Ukraine is the enemy of America" I'm sure you know something is up. But in terms of proving it in court or wherever that might be difficult they're argument has to be 'I'm so dumb I didn't realise'.

We're not talking free speech from within a society, we're talking the lax laws on regulating freedom of speech allowing foreign propaganda to proliferate and potentially destroy the society in the namevof free speech. Your free speech won't last long when you're taken over by a dictator. If you were running would you allow damaging false information to run wild? I understand your concern of going too far in terms of regulation, but that is where the balance has to come in. To just say there should be blanket free speech is a very simplistic approach that could never work in reality. It couldn't even work on this forum which is why Leo regulates it and has to because most people may not want to be on a forum where hate speech is allowed, hence there are rules.

Literal idiots

Yeah there are protections in place because obviously the US is gonna police threats and attacks on it. But the point is that if you go down the road of minimal regulation on free speech, these incidents are 100% going to happen. What if this wasn't caught, it hasn't been for a long time. The balancing act of free speech and regulation is a lot more complicated than those advocating for near limitless free speech. Imagine of Russia could just legally spread propaganda, it could literally lead to the collapse of society. This is not even a fantasy worst case, they are literally trying to do this and have been for a while.

Have you heard the news about Russia paying some right-wing commentators to spread Russian propaganda including anti-ukraine sentiments? Some of the commentators were Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, although they're still digging into it. How would your law deal with this real world scenario? Would you let them spread the disinformation in the name of free speech?

Who is an important question, but I'm asking if its you in charge how would you navigate it?

He gets angry all the time when he gets questions he doesnt like, when he was president he pretty much wouldnt take questions from publications that he didnt like. Whats a lot more rare is seeing Trump genuinely laugh, i cant imagine that

Ive seen some of his podcasts where hes really pushed people to explain their positions. Even with Kanye he really pushed him on the anti-semetic stuff to the point where Kanye got angry with him (although it doesnt take a lot). He does have the 'open minded' style but he definitely has a bias toward Trump, either because he likes him or because he was a bit starstruck with him.

This is still basically an absolutist position. Let's imagine you are an elected leader of a society and you know that someone promoting misinformation and propaganda is potentially dangerous to your society, in that they plan to gain power through misleading your society and ousting you from power. You also know that they don't care about your society and basically want to bleed it dry for money and maybe will even kill those that oppose them including you, once they have the power to do so. What they are saying is technically within the rules of your laws in that it's not defaming but it is mostly untrue or 'alt-truth'. You also see signs that some people are buying into the false narrative. As leader do you allow them total free speech even if you know the outcome will be negative for you and your society? Or do you come up with some other solution? If so what would that be?

Can you steelman the position of regulation of free speech?

Those are actually the more dangerous diseases. Think about if the disease is contagious and super lethal and kills people very quickly, it wont really have time to spread because a few people will die and everything will just get locked down but youll know who exactly is infected. When Ebola happened a few years ago it only killed a few thousand people, even though it was very lethal and contagious. With covid it spread so easy and although it didnt kill most people, because everyone got it the death rate was going to be higher. Mathematically its like if ebola is 80% lethal but only capable of infecting 10 people, then 8 will die. If covid is only 1% lethal but capable of infecting 100k people then 1000 are gonna die, so covid is actually more dangerous. Virus' in this spot of being not as lethal but very contagious are the most dangerous

I dont even know its so much the consumer 'choosing' to believe a narrative, i think now content creators can very accurately target users, hitting certain pain points and getting them into a pipeline that ends in them potentially being radicalized. For example it wouldnt be that hard for me to start a channel for incels where i focus on how important looks are and how bad women are etc I can use false or it least grey zone information, to further aggrevate them, then if i want to introduce a new idea to them it wouldnt be that hard because they now trust me. So really the issue is bad actors and people that distribute misinformation and disinformation, intentionally or even unintentionally

I think people advocating for the right of absolute freedom of speech dont actually understand the danger of propaganda, its literally a tool of war. Its been used in the past to great effect and now with social media its on steroids. So to just allow potential bad actors, dictators etc to just spread misinformation freely can only lead to disastrous consequences. Part of the reason why so many are in this maga cult is because of propaganda, so we can see the effects of it real time. The discussion around freedom of speech is interesting and nuanced but to not consider the negative of effects of it is very short sighted. Musk is taking advantage as much as hes allowed and im glad Brazil have shut him down. Hes actually very dangerous in terms of how he adds fuel to the fire of issues going on in other countries

Jesus imagine actually being a maga supporter where you look at that at get excited. Literally milking them for money

The reason why so many are living in maga fairy land and other conspiracy rabbit holes is because of the poor regulation of social media companies. Bad actors were given complete free reign to propagate whatever bullshit they wanted to serve their interests. Here's the thing, if you're dealing with large groups and societies, you need regulation. What peoples fear is, is that the government are bad and they're gonna takeaway our freedom. If you seriously don't trust your government that much then you probably should just move. No government is perfect but you have to put people in power that you at least believe have the peoples best interests at heart. If that's the case then yeah they may get things wrong but they are actually trying to do what works for everyone. If we take covid, the gov received information from leasing scientists, epidemiologists etc about how to handle a potentially highly dangerous virus. Even if the argument was 'oh its not that dangerous' (which i would argue against), that is still the information at the time. Science is always changing as more information comes in that is the nature of science. So to have the argument that random people on the Internet should be able to proliferate misinformation either through genuine fear or trying to provoke fear to get famous/make money as a better alternative just doesn't make sense. You may say 'well the misinformation was right sometimes', I'm not sure there are many instances of it being right but even if it was, there were so many instances of just complete, unverified bullshit, personally I was seeing it daily from family members even. So would it be worth having 90% bulkshit presented as truth just to get maybe 10% truth? To me it's just not an effective way of getting to good information. If scientists disagree then they should argue, if people are interested enough they should read up on papers and whatnot. People are too hung up on 'freedom', well your freedom will be compromised if bullshit is allowed to fly everywhere, look at what literally happened Jan 6th.

I skipped through to a couple questions, I thought Lex lightly pressed him on a couple issues but he allowed him to basically divert and pivot away he didn't really hold him down on anything. The question with the 2020 election he's still going with the fraud on the dems side, which is actually amazing considering the fallout. I found it funny that he said they call me a facist so I called Kamala a communist im pretty sure he doesnt know what either really mean, hes literally taking it as a school yard cussing match, 'you're fat' 'well you're a poo poo head' . Generally he just looks tired, doesn't seem to have the energy he had before, the big macs must be catching up. But yeah you really can't let this guy win, it's actually ridiculous he's anyway near close to running or that he won before, the amount bullshit that comes out his mouth. I guarantee you if Kamala did an interview with this much pivoting or just saying outright lies, no one would vote for her, Trump gets so much grace because people think he 'says it as it is' he literally never says anything as it is.

I think the main culprit is us not knowing how to handle social media as a society. If you think about it propaganda has been an extremely effective tool throughout history. With social media we gave anyone full reign to distribute propaganda to a captive audience of basically billions. This has allowed entities that know that their policy positions aren't the majority to manipulate an audience and get people on their side through misinformation and tactics. Or even at its worst let foreign governments or entities interfere with other countries populstions and try and sway their beliefs for their own benefit. Since the inception of social media you can see a direct correlation in terms of the polarisation

Why is this 'highly conscious'?

Its not so much a risk as a stupid decision, trump will prob lose and rfk will be screwed

shhh he needs to maintain his worldview

Lol yeah ok

So why would he be happy joining either side if he could get a job from them?