VegetableMan wrote:
cberg wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cberg wrote:
What I can express is that you totally mistake other people's servers for public property.
Which is completely wrong.
This post is a file on Alex's servers. I'm not within my rights to dictate what happens on his computer just as much as I'm not in my rights to dictate what
a website running on his computers says.
That doesn't address the issue of censorship, which is always in favor of the political establishment and the corporate interests that own them.
The voices that are being censored are on the left and the right. If that's perfectly alright with you, then you don't have a f*****g clue what I'm talking about.
Who knows, maybe a voice you value will come under fire. If so, will you lay down and take it up the ass? Probably!
So, how exactly might this be resolved?
You're right that it's a concern that two sets of rights might come into conflict here.
To what extent should privately owned companies be obliged to tolerate political extremists? Should ISIS be allowed to operate a YouTube account so long as they don't post any videos of terrorist activity? Should the Jan 6th organizers been able to conduct that openly? Obviously there needs to be a line, some political speech clearly isn't protected (like recruiting for terrorist organizations), but even that presents grey area, what about front groups recruiting?
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.