3 ms·

once again, same here: to maintain democracy, no political entity should be able to snuff the other side. By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the

once again, same here: to maintain democracy, no political entity should be able to snuff the other side. By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side. And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is. > What some people are arguing for is a sort of "opinion neutrality" for social media companies that forces them to treat all opinions equally without moderation. hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"?

armada651 6y ago
> By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side. That is not OK, for the very simple reason you shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the media or any industry for that matter. The way you protect free speech is by not allowing any company to become so large and powerful that it rivals governments and can enact censorship. > And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is. I don't see how that points out a flaw? I just explained that net neutrality is not protected under freedom of speech, so I don't see its relevance. > hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"? Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful. I don't think opinions should be snuffed out, but I also think you shouldn't be forced by the government to publish lies. I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda.
- hnlurker 6y ago
  > I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda. Now do wedding cakes!!

armada651 6y ago

> By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side. That is not OK, for the very simple reason you shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the media or any industry for that matter. The way you protect free speech is by not allowing any company to become so large and powerful that it rivals governments and can enact censorship. > And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is. I don't see how that points out a flaw? I just explained that net neutrality is not protected under freedom of speech, so I don't see its relevance. > hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"? Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful. I don't think opinions should be snuffed out, but I also think you shouldn't be forced by the government to publish lies. I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda.

hnlurker 6y ago
> I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda. Now do wedding cakes!!