4 ms·

> I'm sorry -- are Trump supporters not able to speak any more? The subreddit was banned, Donald Trump was banned from Twitter, a very popular conservative soc

> I'm sorry -- are Trump supporters not able to speak any more? The subreddit was banned, Donald Trump was banned from Twitter, a very popular conservative social media platform was kicked off of its hosting providers, etc. Regardless of your political views, it is abundantly clear that certain viewpoints and opinions are being suppressed, which is fundamentally contradictory to free speech and American values.

douglasisshiny 6y ago
One subreddit was shut down. There are many other subreddits with pro-Trump users -- I visit them when I'm bored. Donald Trump is a billionaire and a former president. He can and does call into Fox News, et. al and immediately has an audience of millions. The idea that his speech is being suppressed is absolutely ridiculous . Why exactly should private entities be forced to host content that they choose not to host?
- auser1231232 6y ago
  > Why exactly should private entities be forced to host content that they choose not to host? Where did you get that idea? No one is forcing a provider to host content they do not wish to host, and my comment made no mention of such a thing. Regardless, that's completely orthogonal to the fact that certain view points are being suppressed. How do you consider such an assertion to be ridiculous? Do you consider something suppressed only when all mentions, everywhere, of a particular topic, are erased? I don't think you do. Just because those opinions have not been _fully_ suppressed does not mean they _are_ being suppressed, as indicated by examples such as the bans and erasures previously mentioned.
  - douglasisshiny 6y ago
    > Where did you get that idea? No one is forcing a provider to host content they do not wish to host, and my comment made no mention of such a thing. You previously said: > a very popular conservative social media platform was kicked off of its hosting providers, etc The hosting provider kicked off the social media platform. They didn't want to host that platform. Nor should they be forced to host it. What's more, your whole point seems to be that because Donald Trump has been banned from some platforms, that his speech is being suppressed. But those platforms, which are private entities, are choosing not to allow him to post on their platforms. So you seem to be complaining about private entities choosing what and what not to host on their platforms. And the bigger point, Donald Trump is free to go out into the public square and voice whatever viewpoint he has. Some networks, social media companies, etc. will cover it (in fact, a lot of them will). No one is stopping him from doing this. Just because he can't tweet it doesn't mean his speech is being suppressed.
_jal 6y ago
> which is fundamentally contradictory to free speech and American values Freedom of association is a deeply American concept. Within certain parameters, I can ban anyone I want from my business. The problem here is that certain entitled people feel entitled to use other peoples' property as their own. Also... just noting that many of those same users went on to do arguably the most unAmerican thing in American history - they attempted to end it. You can spit and puff all you like, but I won't be listening to a word you have to say about who is and isn't acting in the American tradition.
- peytn 6y ago
  Political activity retaliation is a bit different from standard freedom of association concerns. You can plug your ears and go “not listening,” but there’s a real debate to be had about where it fits in the spirit of our country.

douglasisshiny 6y ago

One subreddit was shut down. There are many other subreddits with pro-Trump users -- I visit them when I'm bored. Donald Trump is a billionaire and a former president. He can and does call into Fox News, et. al and immediately has an audience of millions. The idea that his speech is being suppressed is absolutely ridiculous . Why exactly should private entities be forced to host content that they choose not to host?

auser1231232 6y ago
> Why exactly should private entities be forced to host content that they choose not to host? Where did you get that idea? No one is forcing a provider to host content they do not wish to host, and my comment made no mention of such a thing. Regardless, that's completely orthogonal to the fact that certain view points are being suppressed. How do you consider such an assertion to be ridiculous? Do you consider something suppressed only when all mentions, everywhere, of a particular topic, are erased? I don't think you do. Just because those opinions have not been _fully_ suppressed does not mean they _are_ being suppressed, as indicated by examples such as the bans and erasures previously mentioned.
- douglasisshiny 6y ago
  > Where did you get that idea? No one is forcing a provider to host content they do not wish to host, and my comment made no mention of such a thing. You previously said: > a very popular conservative social media platform was kicked off of its hosting providers, etc The hosting provider kicked off the social media platform. They didn't want to host that platform. Nor should they be forced to host it. What's more, your whole point seems to be that because Donald Trump has been banned from some platforms, that his speech is being suppressed. But those platforms, which are private entities, are choosing not to allow him to post on their platforms. So you seem to be complaining about private entities choosing what and what not to host on their platforms. And the bigger point, Donald Trump is free to go out into the public square and voice whatever viewpoint he has. Some networks, social media companies, etc. will cover it (in fact, a lot of them will). No one is stopping him from doing this. Just because he can't tweet it doesn't mean his speech is being suppressed.

_jal 6y ago

> which is fundamentally contradictory to free speech and American values Freedom of association is a deeply American concept. Within certain parameters, I can ban anyone I want from my business. The problem here is that certain entitled people feel entitled to use other peoples' property as their own. Also... just noting that many of those same users went on to do arguably the most unAmerican thing in American history - they attempted to end it. You can spit and puff all you like, but I won't be listening to a word you have to say about who is and isn't acting in the American tradition.

peytn 6y ago
Political activity retaliation is a bit different from standard freedom of association concerns. You can plug your ears and go “not listening,” but there’s a real debate to be had about where it fits in the spirit of our country.