3 ms·

Yes

• chitowneats 5y ago
  Well, you've just got it all figured out, don't you? Thankfully, we didn't have this type of rampant censorship before the discovery of germ theory, or we'd all still be bloodletting.
  • anoonmoose 5y ago
    Look, I understand why you view this as censorship. But I hope you can understand why I don't- as far as I am concerned (and as far as US law is concerned) Twitter is a private actor and has the same rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association that I have. If me or Twitter genuinely believe that the info Rand Paul is putting out is harmful, neither of us should be required to host his opinions, in my opinion.
    • chitowneats 5y ago
      I am not a libertarian, so no, I am not confused about censorship only being a consequence of state action. See: The Catholic Church and many similar entities. Now it's mega corporations. We recently learned, however, that some are working hand in glove with the U.S. federal government when determining what to censor. That this is all under the spectre of impending anti-trust action is not lost on the executives of those companies.
  • refactor_master 5y ago
    In 1860 barely any countries allowed women to vote. So public opinion was maybe slightly more moderated back then, than what you think. Not to mention that newspapers work slightly different than online messaging platforms.
    • chitowneats 5y ago
      Women's suffrage is important. I'd argue denying half the population to vote is similar in degree to a handful of mega corporations determining what is and isn't good science. But it is a difference in kind.