6 ms·

People can cancel and boycott all they want, that’s not what this is. This is government censorship of an individual they want to punish which is not okay.

fdschoeneman 1y ago
It's unclear that was why he was fired.
- SimbaOnSteroids 1y ago
  It's not unclear. Oma has had the 1000 yard stare for the last 10 years. None of this is unclear.
- an0malous 1y ago
  Trump had Colbert cancelled and said Kimmel was next on Truth Social back in July: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114874422468516376 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1148744224685... The FCC chairmen threatened ABC: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/ https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-...
- Esophagus4 1y ago
  I’m not sure you’re ever going to get the smoking gun you’re looking for to make a conclusive statement here. In lending, there’s a legal concept of disparate impact, which means even if your policy didn’t explicitly intend to harm this group of people, you implicitly / indirectly impacted them, and that also counts as a bad thing just like explicit impact. Basically, you don’t have to prove intent, you only have to prove outcome. …It was a roundabout analogy, but I think the same thing applies here. I don’t need the administration to say, “we did that because we don’t like him.” There is enough impact for me to conclude culpability, regardless of whether I can prove intent. (Edit: maybe a better concept here is circumstantial evidence)
- cocacola1 1y ago
  Seems like a clear cut case of jawboning.
typeofhuman 1y ago
As a matter of consistency, did you also feel this way about the US and many foreign governments censoring (either directly or indirectly through social/media companies) those who spoke out against either the COVID response or the vaccines?

fdschoeneman 1y ago

It's unclear that was why he was fired.

SimbaOnSteroids 1y ago
It's not unclear. Oma has had the 1000 yard stare for the last 10 years. None of this is unclear.
an0malous 1y ago
Trump had Colbert cancelled and said Kimmel was next on Truth Social back in July: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114874422468516376 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1148744224685... The FCC chairmen threatened ABC: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/ https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-...
Esophagus4 1y ago
I’m not sure you’re ever going to get the smoking gun you’re looking for to make a conclusive statement here. In lending, there’s a legal concept of disparate impact, which means even if your policy didn’t explicitly intend to harm this group of people, you implicitly / indirectly impacted them, and that also counts as a bad thing just like explicit impact. Basically, you don’t have to prove intent, you only have to prove outcome. …It was a roundabout analogy, but I think the same thing applies here. I don’t need the administration to say, “we did that because we don’t like him.” There is enough impact for me to conclude culpability, regardless of whether I can prove intent. (Edit: maybe a better concept here is circumstantial evidence)
cocacola1 1y ago
Seems like a clear cut case of jawboning.

typeofhuman 1y ago

As a matter of consistency, did you also feel this way about the US and many foreign governments censoring (either directly or indirectly through social/media companies) those who spoke out against either the COVID response or the vaccines?