6 ms·

None, because the government shouldn’t be interfering in speech.

Dig1t 4y ago
The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech. This one specifically is pretty strong IMO (Biden team telling Twitter to manipulate speech): https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 Yes yes, someone has already said something about one of them being a dick pic, remove that one, whatever. But do you think they are ALL dick picks? This email is one out of many.
- michaelgrosner2 4y ago
  > This one specifically is pretty strong IMO That was from October 2020. Biden was not in government then.
  - dbsights 4y ago
    Conspiring to suppress true information to influence an election seems worse.
    - code_witch_sam 4y ago
      what if you use the report button to do the same, and succeed? have you influenced the election? perhaps marginally. your tweets do the same.
    - ThatPlayer 4y ago
      But that is still within the company's First Amendment right. This was settled when the Supreme Court ruled that political donations are a company's First Amendment right. So now companies are allowed to have a direct influence on elections.
    - michaelgrosner2 4y ago
      Step back and think how your position is anti-free speech
      - dbsights 4y ago
        I'm in favour of free speech, without censorship from government or private entities. Which is why I think censoring the laptop story was wrong. So tell me, how is that anti free speech?
        RavingGoat 4y ago
        How are non-consensual dick pics free speech?
- sanderjd 4y ago
  The point being made by the commenter you replied to, which I think you missed, is that if the government passed a law preventing one private entity (a political campaign) from emailing another private entity (a business), that would be government interference in speech.
- tomrod 4y ago
  > The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech. Nah. The point of this is right-wing propaganda.

The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech. This one specifically is pretty strong IMO (Biden team telling Twitter to manipulate speech): https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 Yes yes, someone has already said something about one of them being a dick pic, remove that one, whatever. But do you think they are ALL dick picks? This email is one out of many.

michaelgrosner2 4y ago
> This one specifically is pretty strong IMO That was from October 2020. Biden was not in government then.
- dbsights 4y ago
  Conspiring to suppress true information to influence an election seems worse.
  - code_witch_sam 4y ago
    what if you use the report button to do the same, and succeed? have you influenced the election? perhaps marginally. your tweets do the same.
  - ThatPlayer 4y ago
    But that is still within the company's First Amendment right. This was settled when the Supreme Court ruled that political donations are a company's First Amendment right. So now companies are allowed to have a direct influence on elections.
  - michaelgrosner2 4y ago
    Step back and think how your position is anti-free speech
    - dbsights 4y ago
      I'm in favour of free speech, without censorship from government or private entities. Which is why I think censoring the laptop story was wrong. So tell me, how is that anti free speech?
      - RavingGoat 4y ago
        How are non-consensual dick pics free speech?
sanderjd 4y ago
The point being made by the commenter you replied to, which I think you missed, is that if the government passed a law preventing one private entity (a political campaign) from emailing another private entity (a business), that would be government interference in speech.
tomrod 4y ago
> The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech. Nah. The point of this is right-wing propaganda.