3 ms·

"it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like". Maybe its unconstitutiona

"it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like". Maybe its unconstitutional (although if they did not use government power to force it then likely not) for the senator to encourage it, but it is most certainly not for the platform owner to do so. "But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms?" Can you show me where the government threatened action if Trump was not removed from these platforms? There is no double standards. Governments wield the power of state sanctioned violence and their ability to use that force to demand actions from private entities should be limited where ever possible. You are conflating private and government entities and they are really not comparable under any credible view especially that of the constitution. Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms. "I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley" This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Oh give me a break this is the lamest excuse for trashing the 1st amendment I've ever heard. If you have government officials bringing executives and having hearings asking Zuckerberg when they're going to do something about removing speech they find offensive your first amendment is basically gone. Do you think they just invite him in to hear what he has to say? It's all an intimidation tactic to elicit coercion from these companies so they can use these platforms to push their agenda and silence anything else while guaranteeing funding. >Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms. Wow? gaslight much? This would have done the opposite by disallowing the platforms to allow you only to see specific things. I don't know what to tell you if you're so confused that you think blocking specific speech is more supportive of the 1st amendment. >This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one. I don't even know what you mean by that. There's one party pushing de-platforming and removal right now.

CountDrewku 5y ago

Oh give me a break this is the lamest excuse for trashing the 1st amendment I've ever heard. If you have government officials bringing executives and having hearings asking Zuckerberg when they're going to do something about removing speech they find offensive your first amendment is basically gone. Do you think they just invite him in to hear what he has to say? It's all an intimidation tactic to elicit coercion from these companies so they can use these platforms to push their agenda and silence anything else while guaranteeing funding. >Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms. Wow? gaslight much? This would have done the opposite by disallowing the platforms to allow you only to see specific things. I don't know what to tell you if you're so confused that you think blocking specific speech is more supportive of the 1st amendment. >This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one. I don't even know what you mean by that. There's one party pushing de-platforming and removal right now.