1.the 2 tweet he was banned for were innocuous -he was banned "in context"
2.he had millions of followers.it impacts their free speech ability.
3. the ban was capricious. Farrakan , Maduro, and the ayatollah have said much worse
and Trump did not incite -the language is not there
4. Social media may be a private enterprise, but it functions as the public square for political speech
Kissinger: “demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.”
________
Cold War 2.0 Russia hysteria is turning people’s brains into guacamole.
We’ve got to find a way to snap out of the propaganda trance
________
Buddha: "trust the person who seeks truth and mistrust the person who claims he has found it "
1.2.3.4.5.6.7. All Good Children Go to Heaven
You still aren't getting it, regardless of the content, and labeling Trump's tweets as "innocuous" is questionable, they are private entities, and they can edit or censor what they want, as the right likes to say, and by the way was the right's argument in the Fairness Doctrine debate, the market decides, not the Government
And the "public square for political speech" is a stretch, it has no obligation in any form to be the "public square for political speech"
Sailor (01-18-2021)
All Trump has to do is set up Trumpbook and Trumptwitter. And watch stock go BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
christiefan915 (01-18-2021)
Can't say, really not that familiar with it, but back in the Reagon era I did support maintaining the Fairness Doctrine, so I suppose to be consistent here, I'd commit to some kind of agreement on balance in what they put out there, but I also see no problem with them banning what they have predefined is unacceptable content
Bookmarks