|
This is old now, but Tucker did a great segment on Musk's acquisition of Twitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGlP9pSfmzM His main rhetorical point is that free speech definitionally benefits the less powerful more than the powerful, because if you have the ability to abridge someone's speech you have more power than them. I think there's more nuance to it than that because people have different levels of power in different contexts, but Twitter is obviously part of the public square so if you control the limits of speech there you have a significant, possibly even unconstitutional amount of power. My favorite part is when he talks about how even though the outcome is good, it's bad that we have to rely on Musk to do this because our system is so dysfunctional. It's not oversimplifying the issue like Musk fanboys do.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Look everybody an idiot in the wild. To who does the first amendment apply? Private and public companies can sensor or restrict speech as much as they want. The conflation is a right wing talking point that basically everybody posting and reading this thread is aware of. I haven't read the entire thread, no. Just the last page to see if that video had been posted or people were talking about it. But the idea that certain social media platforms have become large enough that banning someone from them is a significant abridgement of their ability to speak in the public square is not conservative or right-wing. It just happens to be convenient for them, because they're the ones being banned right now. The ideology behind the idea is much more comfortably leftist (removing excessive power of private corporations for the public good) or liberal (preserving civil liberty). There also is some legal precedent for this, like as Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Saying it’s unconstitutional to ban someone from twitter is a right-wing talking point. The constitution has nothing to do with it, but they want to control social media with laws and court rulings so that it serves them. The framing here serves that goal. Fair enough. I still think bringing up how it might violate laws is more liberal than right-wing, but I'm more interested in the thing itself than married to any particular messaging.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2022 21:20
|
|