> When people say this, what they really mean is they prefer a society where people are less empowered to speak their minds, looking into the past with rose tinted glasses.
Maybe sometimes, but banning advertisement based business models doesn't necessarily constrain free speech in any major way, and it is in no way my intent. I in no way advocate restrictions in speech beyond this particular "restriction in free speech", but I am always open to consider new ideas.
> Meanwhile, society today is more educated, richer, healthier and more cognizant of its problems than ever. Try telling a 50s housewife to stop driving around her gas guzzler while smoking.
This seems completely orthogonal to the topic. Does this have something to do with "looking into the past with rose tinted glasses", which I also don't understand?
> and in the process demolish liberties - that's something only dictatorships do.
That statement is objectively false. Democracies have thousands upon thousands of laws that "demolish liberties".
> That sounds a horrible thing to wish for.
I agree, so you'll be happy to hear that not only do I not wish for it, I would very much like to avoid it happening.
> Such talk is purely vengeful.
Not purely. It can also be an observation of increasing polarization and anger forming in a society. This topic has appeared quite frequently in a variety of media reports over the last several years, and it seems like a reasonable thing to be concerned with.
> it's pretty clear people will start using the alternative the day after tomorrow, and that may be VK or the chinese alternative
That is a prediction of the future, and regardless of whether it is "clear" to you, the certainty of arbitrary predictions actually occurring is not. And if it does come to pass, we can react accordingly.
> The social media cat is out of the bag and it's wrong, indeed violent to take away people's empowered rights to speech
Lots of people have imaginative opinions about what is "wrong" and "violent", but this has always been so, and mankind has always had to find a way to come to compromise. Having an opinion is fine, but keep in mind everyone has them.
> Taking away people's rights to force-install someone's idea of utopia in a society is called authoritarianism
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature, and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[2][3] etc etc etc
And once again, you'll be pleased to learn I have no intention of "force-installing my idea of utopia" in society, any more than thousands of political representatives in the past intended to when they advocated for various legislation.
Maybe sometimes, but banning advertisement based business models doesn't necessarily constrain free speech in any major way, and it is in no way my intent. I in no way advocate restrictions in speech beyond this particular "restriction in free speech", but I am always open to consider new ideas.
> Meanwhile, society today is more educated, richer, healthier and more cognizant of its problems than ever. Try telling a 50s housewife to stop driving around her gas guzzler while smoking.
This seems completely orthogonal to the topic. Does this have something to do with "looking into the past with rose tinted glasses", which I also don't understand?
> and in the process demolish liberties - that's something only dictatorships do.
That statement is objectively false. Democracies have thousands upon thousands of laws that "demolish liberties".
> That sounds a horrible thing to wish for.
I agree, so you'll be happy to hear that not only do I not wish for it, I would very much like to avoid it happening.
> Such talk is purely vengeful.
Not purely. It can also be an observation of increasing polarization and anger forming in a society. This topic has appeared quite frequently in a variety of media reports over the last several years, and it seems like a reasonable thing to be concerned with.
> it's pretty clear people will start using the alternative the day after tomorrow, and that may be VK or the chinese alternative
That is a prediction of the future, and regardless of whether it is "clear" to you, the certainty of arbitrary predictions actually occurring is not. And if it does come to pass, we can react accordingly.
> The social media cat is out of the bag and it's wrong, indeed violent to take away people's empowered rights to speech
Lots of people have imaginative opinions about what is "wrong" and "violent", but this has always been so, and mankind has always had to find a way to come to compromise. Having an opinion is fine, but keep in mind everyone has them.
> Taking away people's rights to force-install someone's idea of utopia in a society is called authoritarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature, and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[2][3] etc etc etc
And once again, you'll be pleased to learn I have no intention of "force-installing my idea of utopia" in society, any more than thousands of political representatives in the past intended to when they advocated for various legislation.