Deferred judgment in digital discourse can empower individuals by allowing diverse voices to be heard without immediate punishment, but it can also enable subtle oppression when delayed moderation quietly suppresses certain viewpoints without transparency or accountability.

Governments should prioritize safeguards and parental controls over outright bans, as protecting mental health is important, but broad restrictions risk limiting personal freedom, parental choice, and digital literacy development.

Government security agencies should not secretly collect journalists’ data, as it undermines press freedom, erodes public trust, and threatens democracy, even when justified by national security concerns.

Should governments be allowed to criminalize social media speech in the name of national security, even if it restricts human rights advocacy and political dissent?

Limiting social media use for those under a certain age can be reasonable when it helps safeguard wellbeing and prevent exploitation by harmful algorithms.

Governments may be justified in restricting social media access for minors if it clearly improves mental health and reduces online harm.

Yes, governments can justify banning social media for people under a certain age if there is strong evidence it protects mental health, reduces harm, and limits exploitation by algorithms designed to maximize engagement.

Should governments be allowed to ban social media use for people under a certain age if it might protect young people’s wellbeing, even if it limits freedom of expression and access to digital communities? 
@houmanmehrabian.bsky.social
#UCWCOMM150

Should police departments use AI facial recognition technology on body cameras if it risks privacy and bias concerns, even if it might improve public safety? 

To what extent should U.S. technology companies be held responsible for how their products are used in foreign government surveillance systems, especially when those systems may contribute to human rights abuses?