all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 1 hour ago
[–] 11 points 2 hours ago

Theres an idea I can get behind

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 hours ago

    Mitigation of harm really is a different issue.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago

    Lemmy is literally my only social media.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Banning billionaires from owning social media, well, that's a given, obviously. But we maybe should ban Dipshit Money People™ from using social media, too. Why are people even following them is what I'll never understand.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    Stage 3, government setting up their own fediverse suite so the platform actually follows local laws.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    Not a bad idea. Governments run television programs in many countries too, so why not Internet platforms for their people to communicate on?

    But the reason shouldn't be "so the platform actually follows local laws"; I don't want repressive governments to get to censor Internet speech through "local laws".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    As if billionaires are the only greedy sociopaths in society. Remember they have thousands of "ordinary" people working for them, willingly and knowingly deciding to aid them in making the world a worse place. Removing the billionaire doesn't guarantee that these people are removed.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Or we do neither of those. Billionaires can own social media all they want, idc as long as I don't have to use it.

    Of course, "banning teenagers from using social media" (like most other Internet regulations) makes sure that only billionaire-owned social media will be able to comply with those regulations and survive. :/

  • source