Ironic.
Yes but you are unaware that unlimited free speech means bad actors can spoof as the same positively published accurate information sources.
I find it hilarious that you think don’t see the contradiction your argument that the government can’t regulate speech but it can regulate social media algorithms. It’s like saying the government can’t regulate what you say but it can regulate what you think.
Based on, your fear?
Simply denial then.
I think you are confused. Do you not understand that the government can already impose prior restraint in cases involving national security? Compelled speech is a strawman.
Oh yes, an unconvincing platitude like when the good guy in a movie puts a bullet in the head of a genocidal dictator and someone says, “now you’re as bad as they were.”
I'm not going to do back and forth spitballs with you. You won't find any reciprocal insults in what follows. There are a couple of points here, though, that could be discussed if you're so inclined.
I don't think your analogy is convincing for reasons I've already given. I don't like repeating myself, but I will. Someone following you around making noise doesn't actually take away your power of speech; I see that as the flaw in your analogy. You remain capable, and the government remains capable, of free expression in as great a volume as you want.
You actually have a point about regulation of algorithms. That could come pretty close to the edge. However, I maintain that algorithms and how they are used are fundamentally not the same as speech. Preventing certain manipulations of user's habits could, I think, be done without prior restraint on speech itself. I don't have a detailed idea of how that would work, but I can give the reasons why I think it's at the heart of the matter.
Since the printing press, it's been possible to transmit information and misinformation much more rapidly. And of course, advances in technology have made it ever easier and cheaper to do so. Now, people talk as if the Internet and social media are a qualitative change in that progression, but they aren't. It's just more of the same of what we've had in growing amounts since Gutenberg.
What's new is the rapid, automatic processing of data about user's interests, how long they look at particular things posted, etc. to create custom echo chambers for people. This is leading to individuals self-selecting certain points of view, and the misinformation that goes with them, without even realizing it. These manipulations are not, I believe, speech in themselves, and can be regulated with no 1st Amendment issues. This has the advantage of attacking the problem without taking away individual liberties, as well as attacking what is genuinely new and different about social media that seems to be causing many of the associated problems.
When I say that prior restraint should not be an option, it's because I value highly the basic liberties guaranteed in the Bill or Rights. Of course speech is sometimes limited in certain extreme circumstances of national security and incitement to violence. I don't think idiotic posts on Facebook about COVID or Qanon rise to that standard.
If you want to call that "fear", be my guest. I find it odd that so many people think they can win an argument by ascribing "fear" to their opponent. If the government gains the power to dictate what people can and can't say outside of limited extreme circumstances, you're damn right that I fear what the consequences of that may be. I worry about global warming as well; would you dismiss that as "fear"?
Your final comment about the "unconvincing platitude" makes no sense to me. Surely you're aware of the times in our history when we have compromised our basic liberties in the interests of fighting off some bogeyman, to bad effect. Loyalty oaths in the 50's and early 60's come to mind. Whether you think it's a platitude or not, what's great about what we have in the US is our guaranteed basic liberties. To give them up in the name of fighting off those who would take them away is worse than pointless.
