How could one protect the, call it one in 1 million… the speech of the (young) Greta Thunbergs, for example?

I bet there is a 15 year-old much smarter than me making political videos and I wouldn’t necessarily want them to be forced to stop. What if they’re on my “team”! ;) (I kid)

Recalling how we had lots of political debates in high school: if some of those kids made videos and got really popular, and the law made them stop, they would have been incentivized to vote $responsibleParty out.

(Socials bad for kids though maybe they could selfhost their monologues instead)

▲

5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

mystraline 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I believe every government disenfranchises young people because they are young.

Its not about intelligence. Else a whole lot of over-age-of-majority wouldn't pass either.

Theres also no old-age cutoff, when their mental faculties significantly decline.

Yeah, the voting majority keeps 'under age' from voting. But at least in the USA, we have children as young as 11 being tried as adults but with none of the benefits.

	▲	Barbing 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You’re right that it shouldn’t be about intelligence! Overall definitely unfair. — After posting, I questioned whether political speech is special. Like should fifteen-year-olds who love film be able to make videos about them and get lots of followers… but I couldn’t be thought police. So maybe- The platform just has to be designed non-addictively. Is this accurate?: In reality, Facebook was so powerful the regulators could never make them stop at any turn. Now that they finally got sued big time, we finally educated ourselves enough as constituents to raise enough of a stink to trigger straight up bans. (educated ourselves, or politicians legislate based how bad headlines are, or it was so egregious it genuinely ticked them off… …)