[NCAC] PRIVATE CENSORSHIP – FIGHTING SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

She's not even being censored! She's just making herself out to be a victim to get attention. She had a history of dissemination false information that was considered dangerous to public health and Twitter beyond having an ethical responsibility to make sure it's platform isn't being used to cause medical or violent harm, also may have a legal risk that it might not want to take.

What I don't understand why is her having social media companies put warnings on her content a greater threat than actual censorship where teachers can't use the word gay or race?

By the way, when I type in "Tulsi" into the search box in insta - she comes up immediately as the first listing - so she is once against lying and making something up.

 

We get it, you’re no longer a closet dip$hit supporter.

 

To me this is more of an effort to do with Twitter what Sinclair did to radio and Murdoch did to news - turn it into a propaganda arm for his political beliefs.

 

It is a free speech paradise already, although I know you disagree. His influence (based on history of those who buy influence into media companies) will be to bias the platform towards his views.

 

I think twitter having a "leftward" bias is a right wing narrative without any substantive evidence to back that claim up. It's just that the right makes a lot more noise when Twitter enforces its terms of service on people on their side than on the left.

 

It's pretty hard to get banned on Twitter actually. There's a lot of leeway especially for high profile individuals.

By the way, Twitter is actually biased already towards conservatives: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets

 

Like I said, when Elon Musk is coming in for what purpose? It's already biased to the right. What he wants is to further turn it into the next RT under the guise of defending "free speech."

 

I don't understand the remedy that's being sought. I am sympathetic to the argument that online platforms have too much power, but section 230 seems to be the best of the bad governing solutions. Definitely don't want government dictating preferred speech. And for the companies, it's their platform, their property, their corporate rights to allow or modify what happens when you express using their products. It's far from perfect or arguably not even good, but I don't like the alternatives that I've heard so far.

 

Clarence Thomas is a Republican stoog on the SC. He is biased and cannot be impartial. He is a ****ing embarrassment.

 

The alternatives is to have other social media platforms arise. The fact that we're communicating on a non Twitter or Facebook platform shows that such things can happen.

Also if Musk wants to buy Twitter and change their terms of service he can.

 

That's fine and in line with America's pro-business free speech stance the last 50 years or so. But that's also only fine according to current doctrine if no goverment law favors one speech over others. So it would probably be unconstitutional if we made a law that favored small platforms over big ones, or a regulation that only applied to big companies - and I think anything like that would be a 7-2 decision with Thomas being true believer otherwise and Scalia being a troll. You may disagree with Thomas, but he's a believer, like the Allen Wests of the world. Scalia is like Abbott - empty suit and logically inconsistent.

 

Sorry to be picky but did you mean Alito instead of Scalia?

There is already a lot of talk both from the Left and the Right to regulate large social media platforms and as noted Thomas has expressed support for such regulation.