3 ms·

> As a cynic, I was expecting that Republicans might want more regulation here (in contravention of their general desire for less regulation) because it would b

> As a cynic, I was expecting that Republicans might want more regulation here (in contravention of their general desire for less regulation) because it would be in their own interests. That's the thing you don't understand about Republicans. They don't consider regulation on social media platforms as something in their interest. The model, "IF you don't like something, then advocate making a law against it" is not how conservatives see the world. However, this is the model which liberals subscribe to. There is nothing which liberals don't like, which they don't advocate making a law against it. Before you point out other things, their model is "Govt should only act against things which are objectively morally wrong, like violation of private property rights". Keep in mind, they opposed Gay marriage for as long as they could, but at this point, 'reverting gay marriage' is a dying (or never was a) cause among conservatives, reverting 'Roe v Wade' is.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> That's the thing you don't understand about Republicans. They don't consider regulation on social media platforms as something in their interest. There is a liberty-leaning wing of the Republican party, but it's not currently the dominant force in the party. There's also a liberty-leaning wing of the Democratic party. > However, this is the model which liberals subscribe to. Well, that's just definitionally false... I think you meant "democrats" or "leftists" or something. But just like the Republican party, the Democratic party has both liberal and illiberal contingents (and the illiberal democrats tend to be further to the left than the liberal democrats). It's hard to say which wing is ascendant because the party is in flux. US party lines aren't really good predictors of whether someone will support free speech; a slim majority of Republicans support banning flag burning, while a slim majority of Democrats support banning hate speech. Even "small government" Republicans are far more unified around tax policy and welfare while relatively split on questions of free expression. In the 1990s, in the midst of the Culture War I, the thing Rs and Ds could really unite around was the illiberal policy of regulating speech in the music industry [1]. > Govt should only act against things which are objectively morally wrong Ah yes, objective morality! Definitely a thing that exists and is never a source of contention! Now, if only everyone were as objective as me ;-) -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

throwawayjava 8y ago

> That's the thing you don't understand about Republicans. They don't consider regulation on social media platforms as something in their interest. There is a liberty-leaning wing of the Republican party, but it's not currently the dominant force in the party. There's also a liberty-leaning wing of the Democratic party. > However, this is the model which liberals subscribe to. Well, that's just definitionally false... I think you meant "democrats" or "leftists" or something. But just like the Republican party, the Democratic party has both liberal and illiberal contingents (and the illiberal democrats tend to be further to the left than the liberal democrats). It's hard to say which wing is ascendant because the party is in flux. US party lines aren't really good predictors of whether someone will support free speech; a slim majority of Republicans support banning flag burning, while a slim majority of Democrats support banning hate speech. Even "small government" Republicans are far more unified around tax policy and welfare while relatively split on questions of free expression. In the 1990s, in the midst of the Culture War I, the thing Rs and Ds could really unite around was the illiberal policy of regulating speech in the music industry [1]. > Govt should only act against things which are objectively morally wrong Ah yes, objective morality! Definitely a thing that exists and is never a source of contention! Now, if only everyone were as objective as me ;-) -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center