Rasputin_Vol
"Slava Ukraina"
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 71,400
- Likes
- 39,142
But still strong enough to overcome demands that he justifiy a specific use of a property by its owner.
Nobody is arguing that twitter or other SM platforms do not have the right to ban/suspend whoever they want for whatever reason they want. The argument is over the federal government pressuring them to do so and deciding what should be censored.
“The federal government made them do it” was the predictable, unsupported, shrieky, hysterical pivot that occurred only after Velo and clarksvol pointed out that it’s their property to use how they want. Ras already posted the link that shows that the government didn’t actually make them do anything, then went back to “why do it at all,” which can clearly be seen in the post you replied to.
They were threatened with the anti-trust laws. They started banning critics and boom all the talk from the Dems about breaking them up magically went away.
I think they are threatened, in the sense that politicians want to "do something" about them. But since the rationale for doing something is coming from very different places, it'll take real movement for the drive to coalesce on a bill that can actually pass.They were never threatened and talk of breaking them up didn’t “go away.” It’s less talked about because the chief proponent dropped out of the presidential primary election. She’s still harping on her anti-trust bill to anybody who will listen, but fewer people are listening.
That’s not a use of the word “threatened” that would create anything resembling a principle/agent relationship between the government and the companies, though.I think they are threatened, in the sense that politicians want to "do something" about them. But since the rationale for doing something is coming from very different places, it'll take real movement for the drive to coalesce on a bill that can actually pass.
Bulls^^t. They admitted to helping them selected material that was being called "misinformation". WTF are you talking about?“The federal government made them do it” was the predictable, unsupported, shrieky, hysterical pivot that occurred only after Velo and clarksvol pointed out that it’s their property to use how they want. Ras already posted the link that shows that the government didn’t actually make them do anything, then went back to “why do it at all,” which can clearly be seen in the post you replied to.
Are you really admitting that you don’t understand the difference between reporting content that violates the website’s terms of service and “dictating to a private business to shut down political opponents” or “federal government deciding what should be censored?”Bulls^^t. They admitted to helping them selected material that was being called "misinformation". WTF are you talking about?