- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 37,056
- Reaction score
- 18,261
- Location
- Greater Boston Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...scrimination-speech/?variant=95d42e19c24b03e7Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.
The last thing that walking piece of shit cares about is free speech. She is the reason reddit sucks so bad today.
Let's see how well the person with the sexist username understands free speech. If Reddit censors anyone, is that a free speech violation?
It's not a rights violation, if that's what you mean,
and my username doesn't violate AOC's rights either.
So you agree that Reddit is not violating anyone's free speech?
They are suppressing free speech, but they are not violating anyone's rights by doing so.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...scrimination-speech/?variant=95d42e19c24b03e7
Wow. A call to have government decide who can and cannot buy significant stakes in social media companies. And she things such a "solution" will curb impingement on speech?
Quick question. Should Trump win in 2024, who wants a Trump appointee making the decisions on who can and cannot influence Twitter or Facebook?
Of course it’s a case of wealth buying influence, but I don’t see how or why that’s relevant here.I read the article.and I get your point. I wonder if this is a modern dilemma, since social media wasn't around 30 years ago. I can't think of anything similar in the rapid information exchange and wildfire trending that can happen on a site like Twitter in years past. 2 quick questions:
Is this a case where wealth is buying influence?
Is this worse than banning books?
Of course it’s a case of wealth buying influence, but I don’t see how or why that’s relevant here.
I don’t think it rises to book burning in the traditional sense which is usually part of a larger effort to suppress all speech from someone or on some topic, not just speech in one medium. But the impulse is still the same: use authoritarian means to silence opposing points of view.
If you mean a violation of the first amendment, of course not. Why even ask the question?I refer you to my question in Post #3. What is your answer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?