Question for all regardless of where you live...

I've been following the U.S. vs TikTok court battle and along with other cases in the recent past, I'm wondering if it is time for "Big Brother" to limit/ban/censor or otherwise have a say so on what sites and what content is permissible on the internet.

If so, under what conditions and who makes the judgments?

If not, then why not?

I'd like to get your thoughts and ideas... I'm for some limited and well-defined constraints/bans, etc., but I'm on the fence about how if could be reasoanbly/equitably applied/enforced.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Miram · 31-35, F

The US already bans, limits and censors content by pressuring those who engage in sharing it ,like whistleblowers.

The patriot act grants your government broad surveillance powers and censorship abilities, including the ability to monitor internet communications. While the p act was intended to combat terrorism, it also enables government overreach, with ordinary citizens' data being swept up in mass surveillance programs like PRISM.

Private companies work with lobbies and political parties to decide and subjectively remove content or manipulate traffic under section 230 .

Ontheroad · M

@Miram Okay, now answer the question. This isn't a finger-pointing exercise, it's about what you think should or shouldn't be.

Miram · 31-35, F

@Ontheroad

That reply was certainly not finger pointing. It was stating the reality.

🤦🏻‍♀🤦🏻‍♀🤦🏻‍♀🤦🏻‍♀🤦🏻‍♀🤦🏻‍♀

You attached the question to an assertion. You made answering it conditional on holding that same assertion/ belief.

it is time for "Big Brother" to limit/ban/censor or otherwise have a say so on what sites and what content is permissible on the internet.

If so

Now, if you asked me if I think it is right or wrong for the US to do it (they already are), that would be different.

I would answer that censorship should only apply to content that can clearly be categorized as related to terrorism or violent illegal activity..

For it to be more fair, they would have to improve the laws, draw more clear definitions about things like "good faith" related to section 230, and enhance protections for whistleblowers, including those who expose abuses related to censorship or violations of user rights against both government and private companies, and establish better committees to keep an eye on internet censorship..you need people to watch people who are watching you.

And even then, there are ways to abuse the system. But I guess everything is an ongoing project. No progress without errors.