Wait, so do Republicans support corporate personhood? So that they receive free speech protection and can make campaign contributions. Or do they not support it, because a private company like Google might have a political preference which they don't like?
Is it hippocracy, or cognitive dissonance?
Which laws have they broken? Reddit and google are private companies, they can remove, delete, show bias and preference as much as they want. You can choose not to use them, but this crying about it and calling for prosecution because your rules are used against you is absolutely hilarious.
I'm looking forward to all of the obstructionist behaviours of the vile and disgusting Republican party coming back to bite them in the ass when the shoe is on the other foot... "What do you mean we can't confirm any judges in Trump's last year?!?! RRRReeeeeee"
​
I love it when i get downvotes and no real replies, it's so much more satisfying knowing people are pissed off, but have no valid response!
>Which laws have they broken? Reddit and google are private companies
A purely legal construct, meaning their conduct can be regulated. Furthermore, Google, Facebook, etc are basically monopolies, and gather your information in such a way that you literally can't avoid interacting with them in some way.
>calling for prosecution
No, we're calling for the existing laws to be updated with social media monopolies in mind - something which we have an absolute right to do per the constitution. You're pretty slow aren't you?
"No, we're calling for the existing laws to be updated with social media monopolies in mind" Yep, because you don't like their politics.
When other laws are based on outdated policies and disproven theories then republicans are more than happy with them.
Also, notice how I'm criticising general concepts and groups, whereas you make it personal. I think it says more about you than me!
>"No, we're calling for the existing laws to be updated with social media monopolies in mind" Yep, because you don't like their politics.
No, because they are targeting politics they don't like in biased and unfair way, using their monopoly power.
>Also, notice how I'm criticising general concepts and groups, whereas you make it personal. I think it says more about you than me!
Yes, I'm calling you an idiot. Deal with it. I'm under no requirement to remain dispassionate when dealing with people who advocate censorship.
> because they are targeting politics
Come back to me once citizens united is overturned. Money is the biggest corrupting influence in politics, but I assume you're ok with that because it benefits republicans.
> Yes, I'm calling you an idiot. Deal with it.
Somehow I'll manage, but this is a public forum, I'm pointing this out to illustrate to others how people can disagree whilst maintainins respect and decorum.
Hell yes, I support a wide range of censorship. Those who promote hate, intolerance and bigotry should expect to be censored, especially on private platforms.
Also, since the US is ranked 17th in the Human Freedom Index I really don't think your obsession with free speech really gives you a moral high ground, or anything for other developed nations to aspire to.
>Come back to me once citizens united is overturned. Money is the biggest corrupting influence in politics, but I assume you're ok with that because it benefits republicans.
I wouldn't mind seeing CU overturned either.
That last little barb, though, completely exhausts any high ground you may have had. You're still being disingenuous at the end of the day, no matter how much of a veneer of civility you plaster over it.
>Hell yes, I support a wide range of censorship.
Then you are my enemy. Fuck you.
>Also, since the US is ranked 17th in the Human Freedom Index
The fact that the UK, the place where you can be incarcerated for stating objective facts about Muslims, is ranked higher than the United States, calls into question the methods used in that study.
> I wouldn't mind seeing CU overturned either.
That surprises me, but luckily I assumed rather than inferred, hence providing scope for you to correct me.
>> Hell yes, I support a wide range of censorship.
> Then you are my enemy. Fuck you.
Moral extremism is something I just cannot get behind. The world is not black and white, and to claim that you disagree with all forms of censorship seems like immature hyperbole.
Can you provide alink for your incarceration claim? A quick Google only turns up people convicted of Islamophobia related offences such as calling for genocide of muslims. I.e. hate speech which I think should, in certain cases - but not all, result in imprisonment.
That study was from the Cato Institute, a center-right organisation.
Because god forbid anyone hold large corporations accountable amirite? How's that boot taste?
ITT: Tankies who think censorship is okay when they do it
24 comments
28 u/Skobtsov 24 Jun 2019 23:34
6 u/lispychicken 25 Jun 2019 02:45
10 u/Shadilay_Were_Off [OP] 25 Jun 2019 02:46
3 u/lispychicken 25 Jun 2019 15:02
6 u/Steez-n-Treez 25 Jun 2019 04:09
2 u/jason4idaho 26 Jun 2019 22:28
1 u/[deleted] 24 Jun 2019 21:47
-5 u/dontpissintothewind 25 Jun 2019 11:13
5 u/Shadilay_Were_Off [OP] 25 Jun 2019 12:41
0 u/dontpissintothewind 25 Jun 2019 14:57
3 u/Shadilay_Were_Off [OP] 25 Jun 2019 15:04
-2 u/dontpissintothewind 25 Jun 2019 15:59
7 u/Shadilay_Were_Off [OP] * 25 Jun 2019 16:01
-1 u/dontpissintothewind 25 Jun 2019 17:01
6 u/Shadilay_Were_Off [OP] 25 Jun 2019 17:07
2 u/dontpissintothewind 25 Jun 2019 17:24
-77 u/Ominaeo * 24 Jun 2019 22:41
56 u/Shadilay_Were_Off [OP] * 24 Jun 2019 23:21
33 u/0megaMathCastle 24 Jun 2019 23:23
30 u/Vid-Master 24 Jun 2019 23:23
7 u/p220 25 Jun 2019 01:36
5 u/[deleted] 25 Jun 2019 01:59
6 u/Pukalo_Reincarnate 25 Jun 2019 10:03
3 u/Indubius 25 Jun 2019 12:35