• BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, I would love to see a Wikipedia-style social media platform take off, but I really don’t know if the finances could work out. Wikipedia already struggles, and it’s obscenely useful. I don’t think nationalization is really feasible for social media - at least in an American context - because it would be subject to the government’s legal limitations on regulating free speech, which are extremely minimal. A federally run platform would not be able to remove literal unironic Nazism, which is probably going to be a bit of a turn-off to normal people.

    • pomodoro_longbreak
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait what, I thought the US had hate speech laws.

      If Nazi gum flapping isn’t that, then I don’t know what is

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really, no. Freedom of speech is very strongly ingrained in our Constitution. The only legal restrictions on it are essentially direct threats or incitement of violence.

        “Go kill this Jew” - Absolutely illegal.

        “Go kill the Jews” - Illegal

        “The Jews should be killed” - Borderline based on circumstances

        “The Jews deserve to die” - Borderline, but probably protected by the Constitution

        “The Jews deserved the Holocaust” - Almost certainly protected by the Constitution

        • pomodoro_longbreak
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you for the breakdown. I had some vague conception of American free speech protections being pretty intense, but this illustrates the individual distinctions well