3 ms·

> cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system If that were happening you'd be right!

> cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system If that were happening you'd be right! But the good news is, since apparently you haven't read or understood the link you're commenting on, neither X, nor the politicians in question, is doing that. Or put another way: the premise you lead with is false. Try again.

motohagiography 3y ago
All I see in this is a "your wrong!" argument. What is the counterpoint?
- georgespencer 3y ago
  That the situation you describe, in which "those people" (Rumble, X, DCMS), either demonetized or solicited the demonetizing of Russell Brand's content. That did not happen, as the original link sets out very clearly.
  - motohagiography 3y ago
    For clarity: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. In addition to the article linked within the article that details the letter Dame Dinenage sent to other platforms asking whether they would demonetize him, with the implication it was the governments strong preference. Consider whether your comments improve the discourse or undermine it.
    - georgespencer 3y ago
      Just lol @ thinking that this statement: > Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system itself. It's a thumb on the scale. These people believe in nothing. Is supported by this citation: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. You said: > cutting them off from their ability to make money What happened: > expressing apprehensions Consider whether your comments reflect reality or undermine it ;)

motohagiography 3y ago

All I see in this is a "your wrong!" argument. What is the counterpoint?

georgespencer 3y ago
That the situation you describe, in which "those people" (Rumble, X, DCMS), either demonetized or solicited the demonetizing of Russell Brand's content. That did not happen, as the original link sets out very clearly.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  For clarity: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. In addition to the article linked within the article that details the letter Dame Dinenage sent to other platforms asking whether they would demonetize him, with the implication it was the governments strong preference. Consider whether your comments improve the discourse or undermine it.
  - georgespencer 3y ago
    Just lol @ thinking that this statement: > Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system itself. It's a thumb on the scale. These people believe in nothing. Is supported by this citation: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. You said: > cutting them off from their ability to make money What happened: > expressing apprehensions Consider whether your comments reflect reality or undermine it ;)