3 ms·

> Which is far more draconian and intrusive. That will enforce less monopoly in social media, I am perfectly fine with that.

• deaddodo 4y ago
  What an obtuse jump in logic.
  • heavenlyblue 4y ago
    There's a reason we do not allow monopolies to exist, liberitarians (like you) would call draconian too, but this is as much an obtuse jump as mine. tl;dr: your last point didn't add anything to discussion, but is likely to offend
    • deaddodo 4y ago
      I’m not a libertarian, and straw-manning will get you no where. There’s also a reason we don’t dictate platforms and content. We don’t force people to attend or partake in topless/nude beaches despite allowing them to exist. We don’t force people to join political protests despite them being a protected activity. In the same manner, we don’t force newspapers to publish content against their goal or audience. There’s no difference for a site platform. There’s no reason “ChristianGram” should be forced to host nudity for Danish (and other) Christians, simply because Danes are allowed to be naked if they like. The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying.
      • heavenlyblue 4y ago
        What about public libraries in the US? Access to water? What if I was a monopolist with access to food who doesn't want to serve gay people? > The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying. I don't think you know what tyrannical means.