3 ms·
> I don't see why there needs to be any coercion. If there is no coercion then your complain boils down to others not sharing your opinion, both in the way the
by rewmie 3y ago
> I don't see why there needs to be any coercion.
If there is no coercion then your complain boils down to others not sharing your opinion, both in the way they don't reverberate your personal opinion and in the way they express opinions you don't agree with.
That's kind of the opposite thing you claim you're trying to achieve.
- leereeves 3y agoMy complaint is about the government removing speech from social networks, even if they did so with just a wink and a hint. And I don't understand the argument that the social networks' willingness to cooperate makes the government's actions more acceptable. That's a bit like allowing the government to confiscate property without a trial, if the bank is cooperative.
- mindslight 3y agoA bank is acting as a trustee of property, corporate social mediums unfortunately do not. If you want a legal right to individual freedom of speech on corporate commons, be explicit about it and work for that! Focusing on this small slice of corporate censorship just because it was encouraged by the government is distraction from the fundamental problem.
- judge2020 3y agoIt was not "remove this", it was "this probably violates your TOS", so that could be the difference between asking social media companies to take stuff down for only the Government's interest versus both the Government's and the platform's interests. The FBI isn't going to Klan website hosts and asking them to take down Klan content because those hosts don't forbid hosting that sort of speech.
- leereeves 3y agoAnd what was the government expecting to happen as a result of saying "this probably violates your TOS"?