Do you not find it objectionable and distasteful that mammoth social media companies, who have massively benefited from the government in both their genesis and their growth, and thus are hardly “private,” can unilaterally silence people on the basis of ideology?
who have massively benefited from the government in both their genesis and their growth
Did you seriously just use the "you didn't build that" argument?
Do I find it objectionable and distasteful? Of course. Do I wish they wouldn't do it? Of course.
Am I willing to betray my principles to force private businesses to cater to people they don't want to because of some ephemeral political environment, and get the government involved in the determination of what speech is okay and not okay on facebook?
No.
Should you be able to call people niggers on facebook? That's free speech, right? Should you be able to post pornography? Nothing illegal about pornography. That's free speech.
So obviously there is a limit on the free speech you would be willing to endure on these sites. The government is not a scalpel that can just say, "Hey don't censor conservatives." It's a hammer that would have to say, "No censorship based on political ideology." Well, ISIS is a political ideology. National Socialism is a political ideology. White supremacy is a political ideology.
The people who run these businesses don't want their platform turning into something distasteful for their users, and that is absolutely within their right as a business.
I honestly think you kids sweat this shit way too much. We used to say the internet wasn't real life. It still isn't. These media companies don't have the influence you think they do. The battles happen face to face, when you talk to friends and relatives, and believe it or not, most people make decisions based on reality, not on a fucking meme. Don't overestimate this shit. People ready for red-pills go and find them.
Do you not find it objectionable and distasteful that mammoth social media companies, who have massively benefited from the government in both their genesis and their growth, and thus are hardly “private,” can unilaterally silence people on the basis of ideology?
Did you seriously just use the "you didn't build that" argument?
Do I find it objectionable and distasteful? Of course. Do I wish they wouldn't do it? Of course.
Am I willing to betray my principles to force private businesses to cater to people they don't want to because of some ephemeral political environment, and get the government involved in the determination of what speech is okay and not okay on facebook?
No.
Should you be able to call people niggers on facebook? That's free speech, right? Should you be able to post pornography? Nothing illegal about pornography. That's free speech.
So obviously there is a limit on the free speech you would be willing to endure on these sites. The government is not a scalpel that can just say, "Hey don't censor conservatives." It's a hammer that would have to say, "No censorship based on political ideology." Well, ISIS is a political ideology. National Socialism is a political ideology. White supremacy is a political ideology.
The people who run these businesses don't want their platform turning into something distasteful for their users, and that is absolutely within their right as a business.
I honestly think you kids sweat this shit way too much. We used to say the internet wasn't real life. It still isn't. These media companies don't have the influence you think they do. The battles happen face to face, when you talk to friends and relatives, and believe it or not, most people make decisions based on reality, not on a fucking meme. Don't overestimate this shit. People ready for red-pills go and find them.