3 ms·
They don't want them smaller they want their autonomy not their sized reduced. Specifically they cling to the idea that social media ought to be a common carrie
by michaelmrose 5y ago
They don't want them smaller they want their autonomy not their sized reduced. Specifically they cling to the idea that social media ought to be a common carrier as obliged to carry their views as that of their detractors. If you look at the actual speech that is being disincentivized this looks objectively terrible in our present context.
- foolinaround 5y agoi dont know who you are speaking for, but agreed that the need for reduced autonomy for any agency of that size. In general, conservatives believe in markets, and if they happen to grow to a particular size with these constraints, so be it. -- > If you look at the actual speech that is being disincentivized this looks objectively terrible in our present context. I'll give one example to see what the reaction ought to be. A private citizen makes an otherwise legal speech at a political meeting - and youtube and all media wipe it out of the internet last week. Regardless of the private citizen being Trump and the party being Republicans, a liberal ( as the word used to mean before) should have been up against such censorship. 'Moderation' does not come into play in this example, but there is nothing specific to moderate really in what is essentially a semi-private meeting of free people.
- michaelmrose 5y agoA semi private meeting would be held on hardware that you control which is entirely feasible.