3 ms·

So long as it's not criminal, yes. I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's vastly better to me than to have the Overton window chosen by the platform provider

So long as it's not criminal, yes. I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's vastly better to me than to have the Overton window chosen by the platform provider. If you can propose a way to stop bad-faith candidates from abusing it, that'd be a great thing, but it's secondary to preserving the ability for political candidates to state their positions, whatever they are.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> but it's secondary to preserving the ability for political candidates to state their positions, whatever they are. Is this a problem currently? I am not aware of any political candidate not being able to state their position, whatever they are. It’s even pretty cheap to do so with the advent of the internet, cheaper and easier than it has ever been.
- wyattpeak 5y ago
  No, perhaps you're right. I was originally responding specifically to the argument that politicians shouldn't be treated differently from other people, but I've let my point drift. I don't know whether the rule is necessary. But if it becomes so, I do believe a special rule for political candidates, as opposed to requiring all platforms to host all people, is the right choice.