-=> Ron Lauzon wrote to Daniel <=-

 -=> Daniel wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

 Da> Don't forget the buzzwords such as 'violent speech.' That's my
 Da> favorite.

 RL> Oh, ya. "Hate speech".  Which we've found to really mean "speech we
 RL> don't like" or "speech that doesn't match our Narrative".

 Da> I'm really torn though. These companies have tons of power but are also
 Da> public companies. They're under no obligation to follow the
 Da> constitutional free speech protections because they're not the
 Da> government. Nor should they. On the other hand, their downfall will be
 Da> the very act of censorship/discrimination that they practice.

 RL> I completely agree.  But these companies want the best of both worlds.

 RL> On one hand, they want to be a platform (like the phone network) and
 RL> not be held responsible for what others post on their platform.  I get
 RL> that.  I would argue that companies like Facebook and YouTube wouldn't
 RL> be able to exist if they had to vet every post.

 RL> But on the other hand, they want the power to edit speech that they
 RL> don't like.
 RL>  But that makes them a publisher and they **are** responsible for their
 RL> content on their platform.

 RL> They can't have it both ways.  The rules don't work like that.

I feel the same way, and that's why I'm torn. Do you remember that dumb
obama/press coverup with the attack on our embassy by blaming some obscure
youtube vid? I believe their hate speech narrative was started at that point.
Would you bet a dollar no one saw that video until they pointed fingers at it?
I'd bet it had a dozen views before that.


... Visit me at: gopher://gcpp.world
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49