121–126 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a name for a economic structure where corporations are privately owned, but operate in alignment with the governments political agenda and goals. Perhaps out of coercion, or perhaps just trying to avoid scrutiny.
Corporatism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t matter who wins, they’re united on that point. They’ve seen the power of the platforms to filter the information people get and the willingness of the folks who control it to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Democrats.
No. Conservative thought absolutely rofltstomps on Facebook and is all over Twitter, which was, until a few days ago and by his own choice Trump's most important media venue. Conservative thought is so prevalent on Youtube that people post videos of the insane PragerU stuff their 8 year olds get recommended after watching a video or two. There's really only two things that have reliably gotten people booted from any…
Even though I find that it's rare for folks on the left to understand what's happening on the right, I'm surprised that even you are so misinformed about what gets people booted. Appeals to violence and "KKK-grade bigotry" are not what these complaints are about, and don't even approach the correct universe in describing the types of folks getting moderated (although hate speech should be allowed IMO). Not only that, but twitter is chock full of appeals to violence, which, as long as it's directed at conservatives, has remarkable staying power compared to anything directed elsewhere.
It's worth watching some of the opposing folks that you've been taught to hate once in a while, even if just to keep abreast of the concerns being discussed. Otherwise, all you get are the distorted caricatures of the fringes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people who want to talk to each other should be able to do it without my listening or interfering, even if they're planning violence against me. Don't get me wrong, I do want to be defended from violence! But not at all costs. I don't want people to be tortured in the name of defending me, and I don't want every conversation on the internet to be monitored and censored in the name of defending me. That's too…
They could still do that - just not on platforms who don't want to support people rallying violence against others; it's not smart to build a palace on potential "enemy" territory - or on land of those that may not agree with you - although understandable if they do out of ease, when there's technological convenience to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could still do that - just not on platforms who don't want to support people rallying violence against others; it's not smart to build a palace on potential "enemy" territory - or on land of those that may not agree with you - although understandable if they do out of ease, when there's technological convenience to do so.
To highlight the difference: there is a difference between forcing, compelling people to allow incitement of violence on all platforms vs. the government allowing free speech on private platforms that want to allow it; if I don't want you being racist in my house, you're going to find yourself outside of my house; this is akin to private platforms online - you wouldn't want to be forced to have a racist in your home…
After WWII when the Soviets took control of nations like Poland, they didn't flat out ban free speech. But they did make sure only the communist-aligned outlets had unlimited access to paper. Like so many censorship-happy people today, the USSR could also say that the government wasn't censoring speech. They were only controlling paper.
What did the government do here?
A handful of companies control the vast majority of discourse in the world - and there's no competition in their moderation styles. It's either time to split them up or to regulate them.