Should Social Media Companies Face Higher Taxes If They Fail To Moderate Hate Content? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Social Media Companies Be Taxed To Fund Additional Resources To Investigate Online Threats?

Yes
2
33%
No
1
17%
Maybe
No votes
0%
There are other ways to combat online threats on social media platforms rather than taxing the social media companies.
3
50%
#15253017
So, given the recent attack on Nancy Pelosi's residence, and the recent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, should social media companies like Facebook and Twitter faces higher taxes to pay for additional security details of politicians if they allow hate speech? What about taxing social media companies that fail to stop bullying and harassment of political leaders, particularly women political leaders to fund additional resources of the FBI to investigate and prosecute such incidents?
#15253020
Politics_Observer wrote:So, given the recent attack on Nancy Pelosi's residence, and the recent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, should social media companies like Facebook and Twitter faces higher taxes to pay for additional security details of politicians if they allow hate speech? What about taxing social media companies that fail to stop bullying and harassment of political leaders, particularly women political leaders to fund additional resources of the FBI to investigate and prosecute such incidents?


IF they fail to apply any moderation they could be more liable in law suits.


(around 9 minutes in relevant section) Internet Decency act.


https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/summa ... ensorship/

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/secti ... t-5640056/
#15253060
We can also start taxing the social media companies more in addition to the lawsuits where they pay damages. Such taxes should be applied to ALL social media companies doing business or operating in the U.S. or targeting a U.S. audience. That way their is plenty of money to fund the security details of politicians and to provide further resources for investigations and prosecutions.
#15253250
Extremism propaganda works only because "reasonable" people are too wishy-washy, and wrongdoers get punished less often and not comparable to their crimes.

This motion is effectively advocating governmental censorship.

What needs to be done is to address the actual issue, not shooting the messenger (at least not first!)
#15253384
Patrickov wrote:
Extremism propaganda works only because "reasonable" people are too wishy-washy, and wrongdoers get punished less often and not comparable to their crimes.



This is sheer bullshit, since you *already know* that politics isn't a giant *popularity contest*, as you're implying here.

Do 'extremists' suddenly *look* more attractive because of diet and exercise?

I addressed this recently:


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm going to have to take exception with this phrasing -- I'd say that 'revolution' implies *bottom-up*, whereas the Nazi fascists were definitely *hierarchical* / top-down.

(Many people erroneously conflate all 'extremists' together, which is why the term is both imprecise *and* unkind to 'non-fascist extremists', so-to-speak, meaning the *far left*.)



viewtopic.php?p=15246720#p15246720



---


Patrickov wrote:
This motion is effectively advocating governmental censorship.

What needs to be done is to address the actual issue, not shooting the messenger (at least not first!)



Skechers Commercial - SNL




'SNL' spoofs Kanye West's rejection by Skechers, Peloton, TJ Maxx

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 645222002/
#15253729
@Patrickov

Patrickov wrote:Extremism propaganda works only because "reasonable" people are too wishy-washy, and wrongdoers get punished less often and not comparable to their crimes.

This motion is effectively advocating governmental censorship.

What needs to be done is to address the actual issue, not shooting the messenger (at least not first!)


In the United States, it is against the law for somebody to run into a theater and falsely yell "fire!" when in fact there is no fire and no emergency or anything to be afraid of. Is this law a violation of free speech in your opinion? Why is this law allowed to stand while on the same token media companies like Fox News can use the same sort of fear mongering to get people to believe lies and emergencies that simply do not exist in reality?

If that is the case, why shouldn't individuals or so called "news" organizations be allowed to use fear, to knowingly and intentionally spread what they know are lies, without legal sanction?

AND, if social media companies fail to police the spread of such lies spread by others on their platforms, which leads to more un-necessary violence, why shouldn't they be taxed more to ensure that there is enough resources for security of elected officials?
#15255939
Politics_Observer wrote:In the United States, it is against the law for somebody to run into a theater and falsely yell "fire!" when in fact there is no fire and no emergency or anything to be afraid of. Is this law a violation of free speech in your opinion?



That yell can be scientifically proved to be false and it does have the effect of causing immediate and uncontrollable havoc.

Propaganda less so, at least.

And to be frank, there are things I think is right which is actually considered hate speech.
For (a lesser, because if I actually say what I believe I risk banning here) example, things posted by litwin may be seen as hate speech in some circumstances, but what he says is morally desirable.
Iran Protests

A lot of countries like Iran are going through wh[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSLlZh9yelk 1. T[…]

A second downtown San Francisco Walgreens to clos[…]

Lets talk real Anarchy

I suggest you steal from gun stores. Big payoff th[…]