Should social media be nationalised in order to prevent the spread of fake news and protect the free press against the...

OR...or..and this is just an off the cuff suggestion, but maybe we can hope that people can do a bit of critical thinking to discern what is reality? Do you really need big daddy government to help you so you don't have to think for yourself a bit?

As for journalists it's their fucking job to research and get to the bottom of stuff. They're the last fucking people who should be spoonfed.

Critical thinking is usually used as a permutation of whataboutism and concern-trolling. You post is not very helpful.

>Having to listen to someone you possibly disagree with to form your own interpretation is bad.

Am I missing something here?

>fake news
That problem existed since the dawn of the press but, for some reason, now its the principal issue. The fact that six conglomerates concentrate almost all media is somehow always put aside. Its always the russians.
Nationalizate the media will make the problem worse.

Whats with all the statists in Jow Forums lately?

I for one enjoy the articles that makes me click through a slideshow of 600 pages just to see why the sky is seen as red for one elderly man in Omaha or something.

This is the board where a smelly kike who promote a software license based on "positive freedom" is hailed. You should not be surprised.

I recommend an ablation

Excuse me the primary topic of discussion here is Transylvanian doll painting

if you start restricting free speech you cant have democracy anymore

No need, left leaning groups are now starting to vaunt social media as the new town square, thanks to their little media darlings like ocasio and beto. This of course means it's subject to freedom of speech laws and they can no longer delete or block people on their platforms, because they don't like what they say. It just needs codification in law, but if they meme it enough you can files suit with the courts that will eventually hit the supreme court, and they'll rule as such, and the lefts attempt to censor the net (and the right) goes down the tubes. In other words, just sit and wait, and give them enough rope to hang themselves.

>Against the Alt-Right
>Defends corporations and literal fake news
fucking retard. They lied on the recent events with the natives and smeared minirs. They must disappear. THEY ALWAYS LIE FOR PROFITS

Attached: 1548186773218.jpg (580x486, 53K)

I actually support a government funded social media site and search engine. Nobody would use them and it would waste a ton of tax payer money, but it would get the government to stop trying to knee cap the tech industry because of (((muh liberal bias)))

lol are you 12? go outside loser

How do i know Jow Forums is not lying?

This. Facebook needs to be bolted tightly to chromium after fagfox is dead. Just like markets dictate

Well, Jow Forums isnt a big conglomerate in bed with politicians to win money. They're a bunch of guys larping or being nazis in a Rumanian Cusine Forum

ITT : People not making the difference between nationalizing and regulating

regulating markets is literally communism

DING DING DING RETARD ALERT

Attached: 1534536038739.png (638x478, 386K)

Democrats also think Trump is the next Hitler and he's going to holocaust all the spics meanwhile they want Trump to take everyone's guns away, they are deranged.

Yes, we should give Trump the complete control of the social media.
Also we should erase all the borders, all the countries, make the world united, so Trump can rule over the whole planet.

Serbia is for example suing antivaxers that make public statements.

>allowing big conglomerates of media is good
That's why you get 300 newspapers publishing at the same time "orange bad man" even though the cheeto hasnt closed any media (like a true fascist dictator would have been done)

>government steps in
>300 newspapers saying "orange man good"
we did it!

That's why I said that it would make the problem worse.
The issue with media now is concentration, no the fake news hysteria

what do you mean by concentration

>People
>Journalists
you cannot implicitly convert a leach to a human

We don't really need to "nationalize" it , but we should consider it a town square and apply first amendment rights. They actually just had some court cases saying gov people couldn't block people on twitter for criticizing them.

Data mining for "free" service model should be banned in all countries. You'd quickly see social media die as a universal phenomenon of they asked for CC info.

i think it is ridiculous to compel any private entity like that, if the government made their own platforms and made them subject to first amendment rights and left private entities alone that would be ideal. That way people get to choose

Social media should die.

>we should
Who "we"?

Attached: siuos.jpg (225x225, 7K)

the difference between a town square and twitter is that the government owns the town square

Nice bait but I'm not falling for it

Please go back to Facebook or whatever comunity you came from. A thread died for this garbage.
I can just tell from you typical, liberal logic that you are from Reddit.
>"I don't like something so lets make it illeagal."
Without realizing the implications of doing so, such as: government tyranny, anti capitalism and threataning free speech (in the case of nationalizing social media).
You also fail to understand that people you disagree with have free speech--this is the entire purpose of free speech. You also do not understand that in "cultural politics" no one is right; in "cultural politics" your opinions are driven by morality, and morality is subjective. Stalin's opinions are equally as correct as your opinions.
In no way am I justifiing Stalin's views (or any radial leader's opinions).

No, you even have a case where a private company who owned a street was compeled to give access to it, since it was the only way that a preacher could exercise his 1st amendment rights.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
This could be extrapolated to social media, since internet traffic its becoming increasingly concentrated and its becoming more difficult to create alternatives to these sites.
A few companies owning too much shit. For example, there's like six companies that are owners of almost all MSM.
Same with social networking. Facebook alone has three of these.

No, if twitter fails because of funding people will just argue on some other site. There's no reason for government funding and should in fact close tax loop holes.

>its becoming more difficult to create alternatives to these sites

is it though? yes its hard to compete with giants, but your speech isn't inhibited by not having access to these sites. Anyone can create a website. So if youre goal is to compete financially youll likely fail, but speech isn't inherently linked to business viability, anyone can create a site where they express themselves uninhibited by any social media company. I find it difficult to extrapolate the street example because the street was bound by physical limitations that just don't apply to the internet