4 ms·
Incorrect. There is no equivalence. Selling books is different than actively targeting and lying to people you know will believe you.
by jacobsenscott 5y ago
Incorrect. There is no equivalence. Selling books is different than actively targeting and lying to people you know will believe you.
- ameister14 5y agoIt appears you are mistaking 're-platforming Trump' (more similar to selling books) with actually being Trump (more similar to lying to people).
- robonerd 5y agoWait you lost me, who's lies are you talking about? Trump's, or Musk's? They've both lied a lot, but that similarity doesn't make Musk a Trump supporter.
- jacobsenscott 5y agoI'm saying selling books that promote controversial or even heinous ideas is not the same thing as allowing someone to broadcast those ideas at will in real time.
- robonerd 5y agoNeither would make him a Trump supporter.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoDo your politicians never lie or "actively target" people with misinformation?
- jacobsenscott 5y agoIt isn't binary - magnitude, intent, and frequency matter. "I did not have sex with that woman" doesn't threaten democracy. "The election was rigged." does.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoHow about "Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election"?
- jacobsenscott 4y agoNobody said that though. No sitting president tried to use it to topple the government. No political party made it the central plank in their platform. Degree matters.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoPeople absolutely did say that and tried to connect that with the election being illegitimate and took it much further for much longer than a few election audits. So what you're saying is that whatever you or your party claims "threatens democracy" -- justified with some vague and arbitrary standards you just invented and that you judge -- is what threatens democracy. And anything anybody else thinks is wrong. And by the way questioning election integrity and voicing concerns about that is not "threatening democracy" so that's just not some fundamental truth you've stumbled upon there either, other people can disagree about that. If your democracy is threatened by people voicing their concern about election procedures and results and must silence them to function, then it's not really much of a democracy. What about people concerned about voter suppression or gerrymandering or whatever? Do we need to silence them too? I'm sure you're going to come up with some other vague handwaving as to why those don't meet your criteria for silencing your political opponents. So now you see why pro-free-speech people don't like these kind of restrictions, because they can and are abused.