3 ms·
> And the fact that tech platforms censor the right is a fact, it may be a right wing talking point but that doesn't negate it being factual just because it dis
by t-3 4y ago
> And the fact that tech platforms censor the right is a fact, it may be a right wing talking point but that doesn't negate it being factual just because it displeases some people on the left when they hear it.
You're not wrong, but the issue is way overblown. The far left is censored just as much or more as the far right, but have much less mainstream political support in the strongly anti-socialist US. Censorship and free speech are the issue far more than political persecution of one side or another. Allowing the debate to be turned into a neolib vs neocon political battle rather than a matter of fundamental rights and Constitutional law is a mistake.
- kelipso 4y agoThe difference is the "far-left" by your definition is a few edgy online people making up less than 1% of the population while the "far-right" by your definition have their own established political party and makes up some 30% of the population.
- t-3 4y agoI didn't give a definition of either, so I don't know where you're getting any of that from, but you're wrong in any case. Not all, or even a majority, of republicans are far right. Endorsing conservative social policies, libertarianism, or being religious are not at all equivalent to being a fascist, a bigot, or a racial nationalist.
- kelipso 4y agoI'm getting the definitions from people who get banned on the big social media sites mapped to the left-right spectrum. Bans on left aligned people tend to be the edgy lefties while bans on right aligned people tend to be a lot of just to the right of center type people.
- _heimdall 4y agoIf you're talking about a group of people that makes up 30% of the country and a majority of one side of our two party system, I believe they'd just be "the right" not the far right.