An Outside Source
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2022
Whatever the actual merit of the sites aside, I noticed shortly after Cloudfare dropped The Daily Stormer and then later 8chan free speech on the internet became drastically reduced around much of the rest of mainstream Internet, by that I mean places everyone goes to like YouTube. The standard for being banned and canceled in general all over the place fell both times. Unfortunately the internet is now so important that when freedom of speech declines there it declines everywhere.
The framers of the constitution did not really look on journalists, publishers, the media in general as dangerous to freedom, indeed, the very opposite. How could they have? They never imagined journalism would become so thoroughly homogenized, monopolized, and centralized that it would transform into a power structure of its own with great influence on world events and the freedom and destiny of this country's citizens and the nation itself. It is out of control in the sense that there is no actually useful method of reproach available to the private citizen or any group they have decided to actually victimize wrongly. It is effectively impossible to pursue a defamation or libel case against journalists due to the overbroad definition of "public figure" the supreme court has created. The media can lie and cause you to become a public figure entirely because of the lie and the courts may deny you damages because you are a public figure unless you not only can prove they intentionally lied, but that it was malicious, rather then holding that intentionally lying is malice in itself, and someone please correct me if I stated that wrong. That is fucked. No checking, no balancing. There's no one to vote in or out, hell you can't even find out who is doing what if it's YouTube. So secretive. Whether we like it or not, these places have amassed into entities with greater ability to control and police human communication entirely at their whim than any tyrannical government that has ever actually existed. Is that last sentence retarded? Is this a terrible take on the state of the world? What should even be done? What can be?
The framers of the constitution did not really look on journalists, publishers, the media in general as dangerous to freedom, indeed, the very opposite. How could they have? They never imagined journalism would become so thoroughly homogenized, monopolized, and centralized that it would transform into a power structure of its own with great influence on world events and the freedom and destiny of this country's citizens and the nation itself. It is out of control in the sense that there is no actually useful method of reproach available to the private citizen or any group they have decided to actually victimize wrongly. It is effectively impossible to pursue a defamation or libel case against journalists due to the overbroad definition of "public figure" the supreme court has created. The media can lie and cause you to become a public figure entirely because of the lie and the courts may deny you damages because you are a public figure unless you not only can prove they intentionally lied, but that it was malicious, rather then holding that intentionally lying is malice in itself, and someone please correct me if I stated that wrong. That is fucked. No checking, no balancing. There's no one to vote in or out, hell you can't even find out who is doing what if it's YouTube. So secretive. Whether we like it or not, these places have amassed into entities with greater ability to control and police human communication entirely at their whim than any tyrannical government that has ever actually existed. Is that last sentence retarded? Is this a terrible take on the state of the world? What should even be done? What can be?
