Hillary Clinton warns allowing free speech on social media means ‘we lose control'

[1987_Lakers]

https://nypost.com/2024/10/06/us-news/hillary-clinton-warns-that-allowing-free-speech-on-social-media-means-we-lose-control/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saturday that social media companies must moderate content on their platforms or else “we lose total control.”

Clinton told CNN host Michael Smerconish that while there have been some steps taken at the state level to regulate social media, she wants to see more done by the federal government to moderate content.

“We can look at the state of California, the state of New York, I think some other states have also taken action,” Clinton said.

“But we need national action, and sadly, our Congress has been dysfunctional when it comes to addressing these threats to our children,” she added.

[iamgine]

I'd like to think Americans are mature enough for unregulated social media since it has this "freedom of speech" for so long.

In many other countries, she'd be 100% correct. Social media misinformation and hoaxes have people believing all kinds of crazy stuff. Leading to riots and nation being divided.

[Off the Court]

I think the public has already lost control of what is real and what isn't real. I think the main issue is that the internet is near impossible to regulate. Even if every post on Twitter was screened, there are a million other forums and social media platforms to go to. Anyone can say anything, and that is exactly what is happening. It's given voice to people who shouldn't have a voice.

I think eventually we will just become numb to it all. Hopefully the public is just in acceptance that the internet is full of garbage and half of it is created in some unemployed kid's basement.

[diamenz]

solid post. i think it's pretty clear what she's referring to when she says "we lose control". yeah - lose control of the narrative.

a lot of you guys are probably sick of me posting about this subject but the conflict in the middle east is a perfect example here... or any war such as the vietnam war or the war in iraq where the public is eventually influenced by images of dead americans or endless war that leads nowhere.

when americans start seeing images of dead palestinian mothers and children on their feed, the foreign policy establishment starts to " lose control". we all know all of the major news networks are 110% pro-israel and won't show you images like that so when shit like that starts circulating on social media, it hurts their narrative.

as is the case with anything really. they'll tell you how m4all costs $33 trillion but won't also mention that it saves $3 trillion over our current system. or they won't tell you how fully federally funded education and trade schools (with the exception of private universities and institutions of course) beyond the 12th grade will result in a more educated and productive workforce.

anyway, you get the picture - whatever the case may be. the internet in general is bad for the establishment. when it used to be just a few networks controlling the narrative it was easy to keep people brainwashed or in the dark. now, it's a lot harder. you can use the excuse of "oh but a lot what's circulating online is misinformation". so what? so is life. let people make their own decisions of what is and is not real or true.

[JohnnySic]

solid post. i think it's pretty clear what she's referring to when she says "we lose control". yeah - lose control of the narrative.

a lot of you guys are probably sick of me posting about this subject but the conflict in the middle east is a perfect example here... or any war such as the vietnam war or the war in iraq where the public is eventually influenced by images of dead americans or endless war that leads nowhere.

when americans start seeing images of dead palestinian mothers and children on their feed, the foreign policy establishment starts to " lose control". we all know all of the major news networks are 110% pro-israel and won't show you images like that so when shit like that starts circulating on social media, it hurts their narrative.

as is the case with anything really. they'll tell you how m4all costs $33 trillion but won't also mention that it saves $3 trillion over our current system. or they won't tell you how fully federally funded education and trade schools (with the exception of private universities and institutions of course) beyond the 12th grade will result in a more educated and productive workforce.

anyway, you get the picture - whatever the case may be. the internet in general is bad for the establishment. when it used to be just a few networks controlling the narrative it was easy to keep people brainwashed or in the dark. now, it's a lot harder. you can use the excuse of "oh but a lot what's circulating online is misinformation". so what? so is life. let people make their own decisions of what is and is not real or true.

Libtards like being told what to do. See the covid "vaccine" as a reference point. Life is less scary under a security blanket.

[Media Moderator]

I wish liberals valued keeping the government out of our voices and homes as they do off women's bodies. They've been attacking free speech for years. First they attacked rap music, then went after video games , now it's social media. Just stop already :facepalm

[j3lademaster]

solid post. i think it's pretty clear what she's referring to when she says "we lose control". yeah - lose control of the narrative.

a lot of you guys are probably sick of me posting about this subject but the conflict in the middle east is a perfect example here... or any war such as the vietnam war or the war in iraq where the public is eventually influenced by images of dead americans or endless war that leads nowhere.

when americans start seeing images of dead palestinian mothers and children on their feed, the foreign policy establishment starts to " lose control". we all know all of the major news networks are 110% pro-israel and won't show you images like that so when shit like that starts circulating on social media, it hurts their narrative.

as is the case with anything really. they'll tell you how m4all costs $33 trillion but won't also mention that it saves $3 trillion over our current system. or they won't tell you how fully federally funded education and trade schools (with the exception of private universities and institutions of course) beyond the 12th grade will result in a more educated and productive workforce.

anyway, you get the picture - whatever the case may be. the internet in general is bad for the establishment. when it used to be just a few networks controlling the narrative it was easy to keep people brainwashed or in the dark. now, it's a lot harder. you can use the excuse of "oh but a lot what's circulating online is misinformation". so what? so is life. let people make their own decisions of what is and is not real or true.
Neither side wants free speech, the only reason it looks like Trump is for free speech right now is that the dangerous rhetoric helps him like election denial, saying j6 isn’t a coup attempt etc.

The left “this covid misinformation is messed up and we need to fact check and shame these guys for telling people to drink bleach and inject horse tranquilizer “

The right “fake news media, we need to arrest all the bad actors”

Both sides are essentially saying varying degrees of the same thing and both hate narratives that go against their views. Human nature isn’t that of a truth seeker, we look for whatever makes us feel comfortable. This is why fearmongering is so historically effective, you give them a common enemy and offer your narrative as the ‘comforting solution’ and as long as 51% are on board you can seize power.

[Charlie Sheen]

Free speech is the distraction while meta is winning court rulings protecting them from telling users what data they collect and how it will be used.

[j3lademaster]

Free speech is the distraction while meta is winning court rulings protecting them from telling users what data they collect and how it will be used.Couldn't agree more.

[ILLsmak]

True that the internet should not get our intellectual rights. That’s a ridiculous heist. But free speech is a must. Maybe cuz I am desensitized, but i am an absolutist. If one thing remains free, it should be speech.

People have weird examples, like it’s not free speech to call in a bomb threat. I think it is free speech to say someone should blow them up. If you are outright accusing people of provably false things, that’s also not free speech. But other than those types of situations, people need to get over it because the alternative is worse. We wanna have one thing, you know? In america they have to trick people into giving up their rights. Don’t be that dude. But regardless of whether our speech can be hidden or whatever ( a whole different net issue,) we absolutely need to be able to express everything. Speech is not violence.

Also some day someone is gonna get some balls and bring a lawsuit against companies that they don’t have rights to your data because you use their service.

-Smak