Can never seem to understand this reasoning.
Musk seems to largely have solved the censorship problem on twitter, which could be regarded as a vital piece of modern dempcracy (along with the rest of the internet, which mostly suffer from said censorship).
While at it he weeded out some traitors, who actively sabotaged during this period. Im well aware that corporate takeovers arent something “good”, but this one actually seems to make free speech a first class value.
This censorship is imposed by advertisers, which is somehow celebrated. Were talking disney, coca cola, whatever… These all want to control what you can or can not hear, and people are celebrating it?
The proper response to advertisers trying to co trol democracy is absolutely “go fuck yourself”, this should be the norm.
He’s absolutely free to say that. The advertisers are also absolutely free to decide they don’t want to do business with him anymore. That’s not censorship, it’s the market and freedom of association.
Please explain in detail how advertisers could possibly have the power of censorship. Am I “blackmailing” Japan if I dont buy tofu? Do you or Musk know what any of those words actually mean?
How in the fuck do you reach the conclusion that a guy who uses money to crush free speech and censor his critics on xitter has “solved the censorship problem”??
Man, I dont see how you pussy-assed cucks can look at yourselves in the mirror every morning.
it’s because comment OP is a right wing shithead and, like all right wing shitheads, believes his freedom to force others to do what he wants is the only freedom that matters.
what’s your actual solution here, that advertisers should be forced to advertise on twitter next to objectionable content? that some people get to say or do whatever they want without consequence and others should be forced to endorse it? where in the fuck did you get the idea that refusing to buy ad space on twitter is somehow an assault on democracy?
Freedom of speech only restricts the government, not private institutions or individuals. We might value it and protect it to some degree privately, but those parties are restricted the same way the government is.
Can never seem to understand this reasoning. Musk seems to largely have solved the censorship problem on twitter, which could be regarded as a vital piece of modern dempcracy (along with the rest of the internet, which mostly suffer from said censorship).
While at it he weeded out some traitors, who actively sabotaged during this period. Im well aware that corporate takeovers arent something “good”, but this one actually seems to make free speech a first class value.
This censorship is imposed by advertisers, which is somehow celebrated. Were talking disney, coca cola, whatever… These all want to control what you can or can not hear, and people are celebrating it?
The proper response to advertisers trying to co trol democracy is absolutely “go fuck yourself”, this should be the norm.
He’s absolutely free to say that. The advertisers are also absolutely free to decide they don’t want to do business with him anymore. That’s not censorship, it’s the market and freedom of association.
this is insightful into what right wingers think freedom is. To wit: only for them.
The reason you can’t seem to understand this is not only because you are stupid, it’s also because you don’t want to.
Please explain in detail how advertisers could possibly have the power of censorship. Am I “blackmailing” Japan if I dont buy tofu? Do you or Musk know what any of those words actually mean?
How in the fuck do you reach the conclusion that a guy who uses money to crush free speech and censor his critics on xitter has “solved the censorship problem”??
Man, I dont see how you pussy-assed cucks can look at yourselves in the mirror every morning.
it’s because comment OP is a right wing shithead and, like all right wing shitheads, believes his freedom to force others to do what he wants is the only freedom that matters.
what’s your actual solution here, that advertisers should be forced to advertise on twitter next to objectionable content? that some people get to say or do whatever they want without consequence and others should be forced to endorse it? where in the fuck did you get the idea that refusing to buy ad space on twitter is somehow an assault on democracy?
Freedom of speech only restricts the government, not private institutions or individuals. We might value it and protect it to some degree privately, but those parties are restricted the same way the government is.