Bob — agreed this is a better starting point. Here’s my comment for everyone else:
So you know how to solve this problem in a democracy? Vote for a representative in support of such regulation.
Oh, wait, sorry — you don’t have a choice of doing that because you read the party platform, eh? Neither wants to do it, eh? Oh dear, your choice is imperfect. My my. Welcome to Earth.
Then vote for the person more likely to be able to be amenable to and effect the change. Better than nothing, right?
Yeah . . . except the guy who started this thread said he wouldn’t even FUCKING VOTE since the choice was between Biden and Trump if he were American. How the hell does that help?
It steams the snot out of me when people like him pontificate aimlessly with no stake in the outcome nor — if he even had the chance to effect slight change — even take the opportunity to do so. It’s hypocritical chickenshit.
That aside, of course . . . we’ll be able to trust elected officials to independently staff and monitor such regulations instead of allowing the platforms to do it themselves, right? Because it’s more important that we worry about “what if” Zuckerberg runs than someone who actually is running, and winning. It would have been better, in fact, if we had left this regulation up to Trump and his appointed officials, don’t you think? Instead of Twitter . . . who is now probably permanently losing thousands upon thousands of customers for zipping Trump.
It’s hurting them financially to ban Trump. Think about that. And they did it anyway. Because they have a code. We agree to abide by the code to use the platform. We risk losing that privilege if we fail to abide by it.
Now, having said that, if America decides such platforms should not have to power to regulate content, via democratic vote for representatives supporting such a policy, I might be willing to suggest a special judicial branch become an arbiter of disputes in this regard (rights to expression on platform) as opposed to a general branch of the judiciary, the same way many other specialized industries have specific jurisdiction courts.
I used Merkel because she is arguing in good faith, I can agree or disagree but either way I can respect her position. Nawaz is a UK Alex Jones wannabe and I discount his bad faith arguments because they are not honest. In this case he is not even right.
My view is that there are two separate arguments, there is the problem of big tech platforms, their messaging and what they do or don’t allow and the inconsistency with which it is applied and how it should be regulated.
The second argument is about the banning of Trump which is a separate issue in itself and has little to do with the first argument, or even BLM or any other recent protest group, an argument to be found on RW forums (well, those that are left anyway).
As long as America ‘grinds on’, protests, conspiracy theorists, even legal challenges to the election do not stop America from grinding on. They are a matter for state police, social media platforms, and courts which are all part of the system.
Jan 6th though was an attempt to stop America grinding on, an attempt to stop the legal and peaceful transfer of power and that, the real deep state, not the fantasy Q larping version, cannot tolerate. Jan 6th was an attempt to stop America grinding on and that will activate federal attention at all levels and across all States.
The tech companies realise this which is why they have reacted so strongly, because it threatens them in a way the Chinese leadership, or whoever, does not. Corporate America realises this which is why you getting defunding notices, the Democrats realise this which is why they cannot let impeachment go, and authorities have no choice but to go after Trump.
Someone, I forget who, said the Q mob, MAGA crowd, Trump‘s lawyers and Trump were ready to release the Kraken, instead they prodded the leviathan and it’s fucking pissed.
