I don't know how to speak on behalf of "people" in general but I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices.
If you want to talk policy, values, goals, and agenda, go for it. If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you are saying, you should not get to say it any more.
Now how to achieve that is of course a completely different issue and seems quite difficult...
You can start by stuffing a sock in their mouth, if that doesn't work, cut of their tongue. If they still dare to speak their mind, well than do whats been done in the past, and off their head....if only you could be King.
>I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices.
The way this will manifest itself is through a left-wing 20-something low-pay intern who will be tasked to decide whether something is or isn't true. Or put another way, you're delegating what you should or shouldn't see to that intern. Are you OK with that? Because I'm not. I neither want you, nor that intern, to decide for me.
>If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you are saying, you should not get to say it any more.
And who will arbitrate this?
And the context behind a statement like this is that your side is truthful and the other guys are liars because nobody thinks THEIR speech should be curtailed. For example, when Hillary Clinton went around and claimed Trump was an illegitimate President who stole the 2016 election [1] - should she be banned from all social media? By the way, most major media outlets have echoed this sentiment as a 'fact' many times since the 2016 election - the vast majority of which turned out to be bunk. Should the NY Times be banned for that? Or are you OK with only the NY Post being banned for reporting on a true story against Hunter Biden and his laptop?
How about when Democratic politicians and Democratic base claim that Republicans steal elections due to voter suppression, voter id, and gerrymandering - is that grounds for a ban? This happens after every major election Democrats lose. This is so normal you probably don't even notice it. Even today, there are outright lies being promulgated against Georgia's new elections laws by Democrats for partisan reasons - is that grounds for a ban? Or do you just want a laser focus on what Republicans are saying?
Right now on YouTube if you try to cast doubt on the outcome of the last election, it's an outright ban. OK. Let's make it so that this rule applies equally ... but then, I'm watching Sam Seder and he's got a video titled "How GOP Legislatures are already trying to steal the next election" [2] (which is one video in a long series of videos across years making this claim) - I guess it's OK to assert election theft as long as you just assert the Republicans are the ones doing the stealing (and by the way, Democrats have asserted the 2000, 2004 and 2016 presidential elections were stolen - "coincidentally" the ones they lost). Would you be OK with one set of standards by which everyone gets banned? Or do you want double-standards?
There are way too many strawmen here to rebut, but I'll take on a couple.
> The way this will manifest itself is through a left-wing 20-something low-pay intern who will be tasked to decide whether something is or isn't true.
I mentioned above that I don't know if this ideal can be met, but I still think it is ideal to me. I do believe there are other ways beyond your suggestion (was it as serious one? You couldn't think of any other ways?)
> How about when Democratic politicians and Democratic base claim that Republicans steal elections due to voter suppression, voter id, and gerrymandering - is that grounds for a ban?
Be careful... I never called for banning sides or people, only statements. And yes, saying things that are proven untrue should not be allowed by anyone in government or politics or public positions. (It isn't relevant but I'm not a Democrat, fyi).
If you want to talk policy, values, goals, and agenda, go for it. If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you are saying, you should not get to say it any more.
Now how to achieve that is of course a completely different issue and seems quite difficult...