You personally (I hope :) ) did not do it.
Then you could say it was we as in we the voters, or we the people. But I dont think there was any serious debate about social media censorship prior to the elections.
That menas that some people made the decision without direct democratic legitimisation. Maybe they can claim an indirect legitimacy, I dont know that because I dont know to which degree the state is involved in this.
@gomeravibz points out the problem. Any decision taken will be arbitrary to some degree. There are so many questions now that need to be answered regarding future cases. Otherwise we find ourselves in a system of censorship where people can be censored not following strict open rules, but based on random criteria. From there it is only one more step to silencing opposition as desired.
Once you create a central authority you need to make sure that authority is kept in control. And it rarely is. Central authority is a major weak point for failure and corruption. In the end I believe that it is best if these central points of control do not exist at all.
the irony here being that 90% of society hates cyberdemon
keep being a racist shithead tho (according to society) because society is always correct and infallible
Oh so YOU are the collective majority now ?? Since when ?? Did you decide that, when was it voted and by who ??
We, the collective people of society (1).
'Society' is an abstract concept, made up of individuals.
Ergo, 'we' the collective is saying you are an abstract concept, not an individual.
That is symptomatic of delusion, and mental illness.
The individual is real.
(Try making a society without any individuals present - You can't.
But you can if the individual is the lowest denominator of agency.)
I guess governments don't exist then.
WTF?!!??? has that got to do with what I just said? lololol
Please, please tell me...
😂😂
You claim there is no such thing as a collective, so by that logic there are no governments or laws apparently.
No, I said a collective is an abstract concept.
There definitely are governments, but the question is if there should be governments :) and what should be the tasks of these governments?
Only that you did not make that decision.
You personally (I hope :) ) did not do it.
Then you could say it was we as in we the voters, or we the people. But I dont think there was any serious debate about social media censorship prior to the elections.
That menas that some people made the decision without direct democratic legitimisation. Maybe they can claim an indirect legitimacy, I dont know that because I dont know to which degree the state is involved in this.
@gomeravibz points out the problem. Any decision taken will be arbitrary to some degree. There are so many questions now that need to be answered regarding future cases. Otherwise we find ourselves in a system of censorship where people can be censored not following strict open rules, but based on random criteria. From there it is only one more step to silencing opposition as desired.
Once you create a central authority you need to make sure that authority is kept in control. And it rarely is. Central authority is a major weak point for failure and corruption. In the end I believe that it is best if these central points of control do not exist at all.
the irony here being that 90% of society hates cyberdemon
keep being a racist shithead tho (according to society) because society is always correct and infallible