121–130 of 451 posts
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
Hm, I just posted "stop the steal" on my Facebook page (along with a disclaimer), and it's still there six minutes later. Maybe it takes 24 hours to get picked up? Or do they just cloak the posting?
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
but i think we are allowed to be upset and criticize it or call for boycotts and condemn them. that’s our free speech.
just like if twitter banned any support of lgbt rights i’m sure the left would cry and not just dismiss it as “corporations aren’t held to the first amendment”
imo free speech is a human right and corporations shouldn’t oppress it even if they legally can. just like they shouldn’t discriminate even if they legally could
That's not censorship. It's Fb's and other social media's desperate attempt to appease new government to prevent strong legislation, such as being held liable for their user's content, forced real names, regulation, and breakup.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's the current administration that's been calling for the repeal of Section 230, which is what would make platforms liable for their user's content.
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
Because there's a clear government-enforced bias. Can you imagine the shitshow if they banned, let's say, black people?
a better idea - tell Trump he can have his Facebook back if he agrees to go on talk radio and cable news and tell his supporters that he was lying to them all along, there is no evidence of meaningful voter fraud, and it's time to move on. only when enough of the supporters are finally convinced of this can he have his account back (or 6 months, whichever is greater)
Seems to be a new account. Welcome to HN! Anyway, why are you mixing up these two things? - inciting violence at the Capitol - claims of voter fraud. He's been claiming voter fraud since before November 8th, and he didn't get banned then, so obviously that has nothing to do with it.
> so obviously that has nothing to do with it
is very much taking it too far. It's clear the voter fraud is the primary motivation he is using to incite the riots, and for many of the rioters it is their moral basis underpinning their actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who was the police officer, and what weapon was used? The only report of an officer down was erroneously attributed to someone beating him with a fire extinguisher. The latest information is that there was no fire extinguisher, but instead he suffered some kind of delayed reaction to a gas canister (fired by the police).
Where is this latest information? The articles timestamped today or yesterday still quote two officers saying he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. I don't see reference to your last point.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/father-slain-capitol-of...
"The elder Sicknick said that his son died because of a blood clot in his brain and that "if they had operated on him, he would've become a vegetable."
EDIT: Point is he didn't necessary die because he was bludgeoned to death. I would wait for the report before jumping to conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So reports of pipe bombs that never went off is more terrorizing than 2 billion dollars worth of damage? ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8740609/Rioting-140... )
yes, of course explosives are more terrorizing than property damage. wtf
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
The opposite of a contradiction is another contradiction. Why are people that believe in regulation of the world's largest corporations suddenly laissez-faire libertarians? If you have opposed the Citizen's United ruling for a decade, don't suddenly act like you care about a corporation's civil liberties, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. The answer is obvious: both sides want power more tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They want the government to replaced by the free market for other people . For them, it's government benefits all the way. The political scientist and author Frank Wilhoit talked about it in his works: > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Errrhm, all the "protected classes" tend to come from the left wing ideologies. Sure, the right isn't what it used to be with Jeffersonian liberalism and free speech, but that quote could easily be interpreted to be about modern left by simply replacing "Conservatism" with "Liberalism'.
You don’t know what the term “protected class” means, and you should probably stop using it.
“Woman” isn’t a protected class, “sex” is. “Christian” isn’t a protected class, “religion” is.