1
boggins 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except it isn't just a business. It's a major platform dedicated to public speech and the spread of information. It isn't a bakery.

I want THEM to be controlled to the extent that can't freely deny the spread of news based on their OWN political biases. If you think that means I'm pro-censorship or something, you're a blazing moron.

4
boggins 4 points ago +6 / -2

No... Assuming I am advocating for "controlling speech" is missing the entire point here. My whole argument is to not allow social platforms the ability to censor citizens' ability to disseminate information and comment on it freely. That's literally the reverse of what SJWs want when they approve of big social censorship.

I'm sorry, you have no clue what you're talking about here.

6
boggins 6 points ago +8 / -2

So what? Twitter would still have the capability to do what they've done. Your argument is incredibly flimsy.

8
boggins 8 points ago +10 / -2

A site like Parler could be every bit as big as Twitter is today and Twitter could still do something like they've done today with this story.

9
boggins 9 points ago +11 / -2

How does that make any sense? If the government doesn't exercise some reach to prevent third-party publishers preventing news dissemination, who or what will?

5
boggins 5 points ago +5 / -0

Not to sound shallow, but Amy appearing resolute and unwavered and smart in the face of these screeching sanctimonious freaks is incredibly attractive. I have a new crush, no doubt.