I see that even at Catallaxy, the first attempt at a Twitter/Facebook alternative that wasn't going to "censor" conservative opinion - Gab - has been derided as being so taken over by (I think) white nationalist nutters that even the routinely offensive members of Catallaxy are warning each other not to try it. (I wouldn't know - I see no reason to switch from reading Twitter.)
So the second attempt at freedom to be as offensive as they want - Parler - is currently getting a lot of promotion from conservatives. I reckon the prediction here will be correct:
Two things - conservatives continue their attempt to reinvent the meaning of censorship; and they seem gormlessly intent on proving via these attempts at alternatives that there is extremely good reason for companies providing social media platforms to have standards that they will enforce in order to make them want to be used, and commercially viable.
2 comments:
Your version of what constitutes censorship is that the owners decide. Which means the financiers of the owners decide. Which means that we have no freedom of speech whatsoever. We've been over this before. The Randian approach cannot logically follow unless you think slavery is just fine and mass slaughter by the oligarchy is what we all are after.
If we had always had a Georgist society and no fractional reserve then you would be quite correct. But you are asking people to surrender all their humanity and then their lives, if you are saying the people who can buy everything decide everything.
Post a Comment