4 ms·

> The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets. And that story was banned on social media unfairly(this banning was cheered on

> The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets. And that story was banned on social media unfairly(this banning was cheered on by Dems and left leaning folks), even though it turned it to be credible later. It was egregious censorship is the main point I am making here. As bad as Putin? No. Was it bad? Yes.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
it’s not just “not as bad” it’s categorically a different thing
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  they’re easy categories: government enforced censorship (ie lose your freedom for disobeying) vs private businesses’ editorial discretion (ie just get your news from another company)
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Just because you outsource censorship to tech companies to get around the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship. The "muh private companies" argument ended long ago when government officials started using it as their main platform and we applied archive rules and prevented Trump from blocking people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twitter-users-federal-appeals-court-rules-11562685206 https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twit... You can't have it both ways. Let's investigate why they all decided at once to block it right before the election. Are they coordinating? Let's find out. Seems like an anti-trust issue. Point is, it's censorship, no matter how much people try to weasel out of it.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      Go get the laws changed then, not sure what to tell you if you don’t agree that there are significant differences between the state and private business - free speech as defined by our constitution is rather specific. Complaining about it on the internet won’t change that.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        We're talking about ideals not legality, what is and isn't censorship. It's legal in Russia to do what Putin is doing, that doesn't make it not censorship. But yes, we're working on it, it starts with public discussion and communicating with our representatives, which I and others do.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

micromacrofoot 5y ago

it’s not just “not as bad” it’s categorically a different thing

micromacrofoot 5y ago
they’re easy categories: government enforced censorship (ie lose your freedom for disobeying) vs private businesses’ editorial discretion (ie just get your news from another company)
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Just because you outsource censorship to tech companies to get around the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship. The "muh private companies" argument ended long ago when government officials started using it as their main platform and we applied archive rules and prevented Trump from blocking people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twitter-users-federal-appeals-court-rules-11562685206 https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twit... You can't have it both ways. Let's investigate why they all decided at once to block it right before the election. Are they coordinating? Let's find out. Seems like an anti-trust issue. Point is, it's censorship, no matter how much people try to weasel out of it.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    Go get the laws changed then, not sure what to tell you if you don’t agree that there are significant differences between the state and private business - free speech as defined by our constitution is rather specific. Complaining about it on the internet won’t change that.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      We're talking about ideals not legality, what is and isn't censorship. It's legal in Russia to do what Putin is doing, that doesn't make it not censorship. But yes, we're working on it, it starts with public discussion and communicating with our representatives, which I and others do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]