491–500 of 872 posts
The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
Why would you imagine that anyone has a right to have their content on youtube. How is it in any way overreach. Surely its users can vote with their fingertips for a different site if they have a problem with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this sentiment, although I agree it's stupid that The Hill was suspended. If anyone wants to give a reason why these arguments are always about freedom of speech VS censorship, instead of being about private property + free markets, please I'm open to this.
1. Markets fails under the weight of monopolies. Youtube needs to be broken up or regulated. 2. There was a supreme court decision that a platform (in that case a large mall) that makes itself a de-facto public square has to act like one, accruing responsibility to protect speech. I believe this is the right link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-s...
2. Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution not the US constitution protected their right to promote nazi literature at the mall. It is also completely bonkers nonsense and invention. It is in fact the exact sort of judicial invention our current majority claims to be against it says.
> Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
It nowhere says that the mall ought to provide a venue. Notably it says you may publish not someone else must publish for you with their ink and paper.
This is just CA making up law from whole cloth to suit their disposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends how you see "left" and "right". I see the left as promoting equality, and generally freedom, and the right justifying or increasing inequality. An authoritarian system by definition gives far more power to some people than others, which is an idea of the right. However, systems of government in practice are generally not strictly left or right, and you get the likes of the Soviet Union which gave some degr…
Left to me feels more pro fairness but anti freedom. Either way though in most conceptualizations libertarianism/authoritarianism is usually separated from left/right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Political_Compass_stand...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems a bit weird, there is quite a story there [0]. In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal. Vigorously suppressing the story was a pretty suspect move. The complaint seems to be that the corruption he was probably involved in is slightly different than the corruption Trump was talking about. Which a…
Making up a story about someone doesn't make it a story worth reporting until they disprove it, there should actually be some substance as table stakes. > In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal If you're making the claim that simply being on a board of directors or part of a venture firm because of w…
And, frankly, the reason these left-leaning outlets were suppressing the story was because to a lot of people the situation does meet the standard of ipso facto corruption. It seems clear that the people who were interacting with Hunter thought they were buying influence in the US political apparatus, probably the executive given his father's position; otherwise the decisions don't make a lot of sense. To a lot of people that basically is corruption. Although I doubt it is unusual in the US Congress if we poked around a little.
EDIT, was Russia-US war. My bad.
The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 136-page 2nd interim report of the Office of Special Counsel of the state of Wisconsin, recently released, raises troubling issues. See especially: Chapter 6: Wisconsin Election Officials’ Widespread Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes Facially Violated Wisconsin Law. Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) Unlawfully Directed Clerks to Violate Rules Protecting Nursing Home Residents, Resulting in a 100…
Citizens have names. There's no reason to try and rely on statistical analysis to suggest whether improper voting has occurred. Provide evidence, not conjecture.
In Milwaukee County, 30 nursing homes vetted, 1084 registered voters, 1084 votes, 100%
In Racine County, 12 nursing homes vetted, 348 registered voters, 348 votes, 100%
In Dane County, 24 nursing homes vetted, 723 registered voters, 723 votes, 100%
Etc.
An exemplar of the problem is detailed in the case filed in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, by one Paul Archambault on behalf of his mother, "Jane Doe", who was "adjudicated as incompetent by the Waukesha County Circuit Court due to a degenerative brain disorder on June 23, 2015." But, it was discovered that, "Jane Doe had cast ballots in the August 11, 2020 Partisan Primary, and the November2020 General Election".
https://empowerwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Summ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you imagine that anyone has a right to have their content on youtube. How is it in any way overreach. Surely its users can vote with their fingertips for a different site if they have a problem with it.
Users have just as much right to complain about policies they find ridiculous as they do to leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others. That becomes more problematic and debatable once infrastructure companies such as a DNS provider or a hosting company refuses to deal with some content given that you remove the ability to create your own soapbox.
Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.
A right to access to an audience, not a right to an audience.
If it's nonsense, then why censor it? If it's not nonsense, then why censor it?
This argument would work equally well to support spreading neo-nazi propaganda material. Trite catchphrases are nothing to base a belief system around. An argument doesn't have to make logical sense for it to convince millions of people. Especially not if they like the conclusion.