When an influencer is literally anyone online, then yes: anyone.
Nothing else you wrote matters, because anyone can be an influencer.
People should be held accountable for their lapses in judgement to believe whatever: they aren’t mindless automatons.
We can’t depend on anyone (certainly not big daddy government) but ourselves to think critically for us.
Not butthurt at all. I just accepted that I’m not discussing with someone capable of reading a comment beyond the first sentence of it. It’s fine tho, I’m not gonna explain it again just because you refuse to read the first comment.
Let’s hold people responsible for what they say by violating freedom of speech.
Little Jimmy injured himself trying to fly like Superman, so we must hold those media execs responsible by violating freedom of expression.
Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm.
The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded.
Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.
When an influencer is literally anyone online, then yes: anyone. Nothing else you wrote matters, because anyone can be an influencer.
People should be held accountable for their lapses in judgement to believe whatever: they aren’t mindless automatons. We can’t depend on anyone (certainly not big daddy government) but ourselves to think critically for us.
So you didn’t read past the first sentence, got it.
Nah, your point is worthless. Here’s a nice picture.
Ah… I see… My bad, I understood it too late that I wasn’t talking with someone able to fully read a comment before making a “sharp” remark about it.
Get butthurt all you want about others not caring about & disagreeing with your point.
Someone’s lack of sense to question unreliable information is entirely their fault. That’s no justification to violate a fundamental right.
Not butthurt at all. I just accepted that I’m not discussing with someone capable of reading a comment beyond the first sentence of it. It’s fine tho, I’m not gonna explain it again just because you refuse to read the first comment.
You don’t need to explain your delusion that critics didn’t read your comment.
“I’m a free speech absolutist who can’t read and believes that people shouldn’t be held responsible for what they say”.
You’re not a critic, you just sound awfully like a maga snowflake yelling “but muh freedom!”.
Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm. The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded. Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.