It becomes news and for good or bad the starting point of said news.How does one not listen , we both be discussing it here and now , ain't we ?
Is total apathy the choice ?
Exactly, and unlike the olden days with social media you can actually instantly respond.
So @raduv1 i wholly disagree when you suggest it is blocked from disagreeing. On the contrary, that is fully possible, totally public, and you can instantly link a counter campaign. That really wasn’t possible for most ordinary folk before social media was there.
How can one respond to a a random Twitter post when the major news outlets are blocked from doing so ?We even have this social media aspect in real life with the Prez saying I will not take questions from fake news outlets .
Do you not feel social media needs some or any type of regulation? Or is free for al free speech l good for us and good for democracy? I'm not feeling the latter mate but I can be enlightened.
You can tweet as much as the POTUS can. Nobody is stopping you. Perhaps I’m missing a point here.
Perhaps it is useful for the discussion to highlight what kind of regulation you’d welcome. I think normal laws apply and no further regulation is required.
I can and you can as is the point of the thread, we have moderation on this very forum so members can not abuse or offend . No regulation on social media leadsto targeted tweets have an appeal for effect and impact on the population. My point exactly in has social media overtaken politics for populist agenda over democraticly ? You seem to unwillingly agree but are ok with it ?
We are all way to smart on this forumto be led ain't we , way way to smart .
I’m not so smart obviously as I honestly don’t get the point you are making. There are laws in place of what you can publicly say, are you suggesting it isn’t enough?
Many social media companies like Facebook and Twitter have very large teams dedicated to reviewing and protecting the vulnerable as well. On our telegram channel we employ specific moderators to moderate what we want and think is acceptable on our channel in addition to the law.
Can you please explain as to what regulation you’d actually like to see. I really think that would help bring your point across and maybe I’d even agree with you. For now I don’t see the need.
Do you really believe this ? or is it just a generic response to agree to your own needs ?
Does Twitter FB and other social media outlets have to comply to the latest and deserved News media outlets ? Does not social media have a powerful unregulated voice ?
You ask what regulation is needed, this is what saddens me as for manynone is needed even at the highest level . It's almost that we encourage it and want it and live for it .
If one does not feel the need for social media regulation is it the true bastion of free speech ?As such it can not be used or indeed abused ?
Hmm I'm even more engaged and interested in how it can not be . Enlighten me please 
This is getting circular, until you actually provide a point that is debateble; I.e. you keep on repeating you want regulation but you aren’t staring at all what you want the regulation to do. Then I’m out.
It’s pointless discussing this when existing laws are already there. Both the companies and law enforcement teams monitor and act, but you still want this mythical regulation whatever that may entail without stating what you think it should entail.
You can say what you like on unregulated social media.
YouTube, Facebook, and Apple’s ban on Alex Jones, explained
Oh.
I think? @raduv1point is that he's not allowed to comment directly on Donald Trump's tweets and obviously that's undemocratic? 