No one cares what it's called, honestly.
The important thing is whether or not the market services the needs of the public. A more dynamic and competitive market does that better than one controlled by a Greyhound bus of monopolies and oligarchies like the one you're advocating.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
GOPers and libertarians should be free to take dewormers, bleach, and anything they think will help.
omfg with this Trump nonsense again, does the president have any authority over NPR? no? then why would a public video platform be any different? other than that being literally the only excuse you have to justify why it shouldn't exist? some absurd situation you have to make up in order to have any argument against a public good? no seriously this is the same argument that can be made against NPR and it doesn't work that way, so your argument doesn't work, at all!
Those "Amber alerts" would take a different context if run by a company led by the likes of Matt Gaetz.
Companies still have rights, because they are led by people.
Business owners also deserve rights.
The issue is that it's their private property, and their megaphone. You want to take over that megaphone, so their rights would be impacted.
- - - Updated - - -
It is servicing the needs of the public, and more than a hundred million Americans agree, because they use it.
- - - Updated - - -
So, cite the legislation.
It's your argument, so let's see it.
Or, is this another case of you wanting to ignore evidence, whilst providing none of your own?
- - - Updated - - -
You said you wanted the government to nationalize all of them. So, this isn't like NPR, because you have specifically said you want the government to control speech.
It's not an absurd situation, it's going by the timeline of this article, and your argument.
- - - Updated - - -
Pravda would like to have a chat.
- - - Updated - - -
Except, he literally called for the government to restrict the speech on those platforms.
The owners might have rights; the company itself should not be regarded as a person.
I talked to it and it said it wanted you to stop using in shitty talking points like insinuating that anything that has a potential for abuse needs to be gotten rid of. Rofl.Pravda would like to have a chat.
Except, you've yet to demonstrate how this actually prevents people from exercising their speech.
Speech =/= reach. You've no right to the latter, or else banning people from forums wouldn't be permissible.
So, were you high or drunk during the several pages wherein Falwell v. Hustler and the corpus of law surrounding free speech at the federal level was brought up?
You've been provided the evidence. Not our fault you can't anything argue without moving the goalposts constantly, like switching between "government run websites" and "government run social media/video sharing" depending on which is more convenient.
Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-09-24 at 01:55 AM.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
They have rights, the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and that's not going to change. They have rights, because business owners have rights.
You want the government to restrict speech, this has been made clear. So, it's not an issue of NPR, because you want the government to control the speech.
I have literally pointed it out, numerous times. The goal is to punish people for telling the literal and objective truth.
I never did get that federal law from you. Have you found it, yet? You bitched that I provided the California law, saying it's federal, so what law, exactly?
If you cannot provide the law, I'll assume you have no idea, and we can move past it.
Last edited by Machismo; 2021-09-24 at 02:01 AM.
so we're reduced to out right lying now? that's how you think you "win" this discussion? you're pathetic...because you have specifically said you want the government to control speech.
Which they should not. Sorry you have problems with is versus ought arguments.
Speech =/= reach. The restrictions are on the latter, not the former.You want the government to restrict speech, this has been made clear.
Imagine not knowing what Common Law is.I never did get that federal law from you.
It's actually really funny that he thinks what is effectively a spam filter is "controlling people's speech", truth be told. To say nothing of having to reach down to state level legislation in order to avoid being entirely full of shit.
I'm looking forward to more scintillating takes like "website moderation is prohibited by the First Amendment" or trying to claim common law isn't a thing not one post after claiming that business owners have rights because the judiciary said so.
Complete and utter lack of imagination.
Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-09-24 at 02:13 AM.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Once again, you can say they should not, but not only should they, that's not going to change. We have SCOTUS precedent on that, and I know you're a fan of such things.
the restrictions are not just on the latter, because people are calling on silencing and banning misinformation. It's their property, and it's their speech. If they want reach, and the government is trying to stop it, that is an infringement on their speech.
The precedent is on my side. Literally both of your rulings were in favor of protecting speech...
So, Citizens United, among others would disagree with your "common law" argument. You don't get to whine about precedent, when that is your argument.
Then why on Earth are you whinging about a lack of evidence.
Oh, so you admit you were lying when you said I was asking the government to "control speech", huh? Lol.the restrictions are not just on the latter, because people are calling on silencing and banning misinformation.
Okay, and?It's their property, and it's their speech.
Nah, it's not, or else website moderation or filtering spam wouldn't be legally permissible. You're not asking for speech, you're asking to be entitled to an audience.If they want reach, and the government is trying to stop it, that is an infringement on their speech.
Thus admitting that cutting down on misinformation is not incompatible with free speech, as the Hustler v. Falwell ruling was fairly explicit about.The precedent is on my side. Literally both of your rulings were in favor of protecting speech...
Citizens United existing does not make common law not a thing, so not sure why you're saying this.So, Citizens United, among others would disagree with your "common law" argument.
You asked me what the law is, that does not mean it ought not to be changed.
Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-09-24 at 02:22 AM.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
The government already restricts plenty of forms of speech.
Again, see child pornography for an example that nobody but pedophiles thinks should be uncensored and free to express.
No, the goal is to penalize/remove misinformation projects.I have literally pointed it out, numerous times. The goal is to punish people for telling the literal and objective truth.
If you can't tell the difference, that's a you problem.