4 ms·
I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I be
by mikece 6y ago
I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I believe it's more accurate that ADVERTISERS on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, in the name of brand safety, don't want controversial conservative content showing up adjacent to their advertising.
If Google were to make this argument, that concern for the brand-safety of their advertisers, they are pulling the ability for these sites to show ads that would make sense and be somewhat defensible... but are they simply saying these sites can still show Google ads but they cannot make money from the ads while Google still does? THAT would be different.
- retortio 6y agoAre conservative statements on, say, ending illegal immigration really any more controversial than leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration? Far more than half of America is against illegal immigration yet the AP, newsrooms across America, Universities, etc refuse to even use the term illegal immigration and recognize the problem for what it is, in spite of the majority of America's agreement on the seriousness of the problem. It seems that in this case, and in many others, it's really the Leftist position that is "controversial" while the Rightist position is simply not popular among the Leftist elite. The ones who dictate what is "controversial" or not are often just wielding that term as propaganda for whichever side they support.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Are conservative statements on, say, ending illegal immigration really any more controversial than leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration? How can something be compared to something that doesn't exist? > Far more than half of America is against illegal immigration yet the AP, newsrooms across America, Universities, etc refuse to even use the term illegal immigration and recognize the problem for what it is, in spite of the majority of America's agreement on the seriousness of the problem. Even people who would agree if asked that “illegal immigration” is a problem don't necessarily prefer the term “illegal immigration”, and very often don't agree with other people who agree with that question as to what the nature of the problem is. After all, people who think that the main problem is the system that produces illegal status for people who should be allowed, or even encouraged, to immigrate and people who think that the system is perfect but for it's failure to actually exclude all the people to whom it denies legal status can both easily agree with the statement “illegal immigration is a problem”. It's a statement people can agree with with no agreement on substance.
- exolymph 6y agoAre you seriously contending that "leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration" don't exist? Like at all? No extremists on your side, huh? Pull the other one, man.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Are you seriously contending that "leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration" don't exist? Not in any way symmetric conservative statements opposing illegal immigration. It's true that there are quite a lot of left-of-center statements opposing aspects the current regime of immigration restrictions, which are roughly parallel to the conservative rhetoric against illegal immigrants, but those statements are opposing illegal immigration from a different angle than the right is, not promoting illegal immigration. > No extremists on your side, huh? There are plenty of extrmists on the left, some of which are pro-immigrant. But the real extremists on this issue tend to be against even the existence of the concept of illegal immigration, while the less extreme group tends to favor reform of the immigration system to better align the supply of legal immigration slots with demand for them and thus reduce the impetus for illegal immigration, and making it easier and more effective to focus enforcement efforts on immigrants that are individually undesirable (dangerous criminals, etc.) rather than merely supernumerary due to the arbitrary alotment of slots.
- throw_m239339 6y agoBanning something isn't very "liberal". But maybe in US people have a different understanding of what "liberal" entails.
- seesawtron 6y agoAre you implying that nothing should be "banned" at all? There are examples of tons of things that have to be banned to keep the society sane at some level. For examples, things that are considered illegal by the publically elected governments and hence are banned to be shown on the internet or elsewhere or promoted in anyway. What matters more is how are the decisions made whether to ban or allow some content. In the non-virtual world, there is a publically elected state that makes those decisions. In the virtual world, those decisions are made by private companies that own that part of the virtual world. Ever since the creating of the virtual world, there has been an ongoing tug-of-war between the state and the corporations for this exact control of authority. Now that our virtual and non-virtual worlds are so intertwined with each other, the state is still trying to catch up to understand, contain and secure the virtual world but they are still at loss.
- mikestew 6y agoOr perhaps you would do well to identify those doing the banning first. Based on your response, I think you'll find that you have misread parent.