350
Israeli tech CEO calls to 'limit the First Amendment' to prevent spread of 'lies' on social media
(www.foxbusiness.com)
Good thing Isreal has never spread lies.
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
350 points (98.9% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
16002 readers
664 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fuck this piece of shit.
"DOGE has fired 75% of the Ministry of Truth on Wednesday. The number of true facts is expected to decrease. Please plan accordingly."
How about we don't limit our rights and you go fuck yourself.
He can fuck right off back to Israel with that bullshit.
Woah, a rich asshole wanting to abolish rights? Unheard of!
Every time the preamble to the US Constitution and the first ten amendments (bill of rights) come under attack, I'm still impressed by who, when, and how it happens. Not only do we still have awful, abusive, people in power, but they're horrible in the exact same ways that prompted these words in the first place. The founding fathers were kind enough to indicate that the very worst stains on humanity will hate these specific things, so never give them up.
Wow, Shlomo with the hot take
Every fucking time these entitled genociders think they can say what has to happen in other countries.
Follow the rules, let AIPAC ~~bribe~~ pay american politicians and THEY will make the laws for you, it's a democracy buddy!
This guy needs to lodge his head deeply into a dark recess of his own anatomy.
Zines made on a typewriter, slaps, and old fashioned vandalism with wheatpaste or spray paint are still your best mediums for spreading the word. They might not get as much distribution as posting on the internet, but they’re also not competing with billions of other comments for attention, just the eyes of the people in your community. People who want the kind of world this canker envisions want social media and the government to sanitize it of dissent for them so they can be reassured and feel safe. The rest of us are already ditching those platforms and as long as you can scrawl a message in Sharpie on a street sign, you can let them know dissent always exists in their community.
IIRC social media speech is not protected under the first ammendment
It's no less protected than any other kind of speech.
The problem is that it's protected from the government, rather than from the social media company
Speech is a human mechanism of communication. The bot farms that his country employ against people are not people, and should be regulated. Peoples' speech should not be regulated.
It's not. Free speech is to prevent a state encroaching on or involving themselves in the censorship of citizens.
Social media operators can do what they want in terms of censorship. It's their's to censor and if someone doesn't like it they may simply choose not to use it. It does not impact their wellbeing or freedoms within the state and is not a social service.
Edit: So quite ironically, suggesting limitations on 1A is against the 1A. It is there to prevent limitations of freedoms by things the state may try to impose, should a state ever become corrupted.
Sadly platforms like Twitter or Facebook are almost requirements for some people to get their news, look for a job, communicate in general, etc. pretty soon you’ll need a Twitter account to vote in an election. When the oligarchs and monopolies have become the government by controlling politicians, some might argue certain constitutional protections might be required. Idk. Should be laws against employers asking for your social media info, or politicians posting on official accounts on those platforms. Maybe then we can separate the two and make the argument 1A does not apply there.