But where do you draw the line? If I make videos of scripted bits, should I be removed from the net if I don’t put a giant disclaimer first? What about the burden of verification?

Like I said, I don’t like scripted reality or clickbait, I’m fine with that going away. Get some help!

[–] 1917isnow@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Acting like it's impossible to distinguish between Infowars and Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job is not a compelling argument to me and it would never hold up in court.

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Like I said, I kinda agree, and that’s why I’d like to see ancient aliens, pretty much all reality tv, etc taken off the air- none of it is real but is presented as such. Not to mention 85% of Fox “News”. But once you purge all of that, where is the line?

[–] 1917isnow@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not a slippery slope, you can actually codify good definitions of "stochastic terrorism". Of course it would be misused by a right wing government but that's not really exclusive to censorship.

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but was the chick in the original post committing acts of terrorism? That’s what I’m getting at. It’s stupid, but should it involve a total perma-ban? I dunno.

[–] 1917isnow@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I actually don't think it should be punished as terrorism. I'm sorry if that was unclear but let's extend this concept if you can commit terrorism stochastically can't you also commit child abuse and harm stochastically? It's not legal to do things like tell children to eat dirt they're too stupid it's not fair, same principle should apply to advertising and disinformation IMO.