Your argument contains the fallacy fallacy, a logical fallacy in which one wrongly cites an informal fallacy in order to discredit a valid argument.

The actions of several democratic governments is evidence that there is enough popular support for these actions to argue for a broader trend. And before you try for a gotcha, I am well aware that a democratic government can enact regulations without a direct vote proving that a majority of people support such an action. But inasmuch as a government reflects the will of the governed, etc etc etc.

▲

pembrook 2 days ago | parent [-]

Huh? Claiming something is true because a government supports it, is quite possibly the most cut-and-dry definition of an appeal to authority I've ever seen.

	▲	dcow 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Governments aren’t banning or restricting it because “god said it was bad”. Nor is the GGGP arguing that we should take it seriously because governments do so. Those would be specific appeals to authority. The GGGP argument uses examples of cases where social media has been taken seriously enough to result in government regulation to directly rebut the GGGGP’s claim that social media is only being discussed on substack and not more broadly.
	▲	Chris2048 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"several democratic governments"