So I’m assuming that Sinclair will be demanding that Tucker apologize and donate and that the FCC will be threatening to cancel his podcast.
So I’m assuming that Sinclair will be demanding that Tucker apologize and donate and that the FCC will be threatening to cancel his podcast.
The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.
It doesn’t impact my reply, but I figured I’d let you know. :)
I’m against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche “you can’t threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods”.
I’m okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren’t a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what’s in your package, beyond what’s necessary to move it safely.
If you’re needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.
I don’t want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There’s plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.
That ignores the fact that the government leans on these people behind the scenes. So it is a thinly veiled end run around government censorship, as we have seen with social media, Homeland Security giving lists of names for them to ban for other reasons.
I agree 100% Sorry I was ambiguous in my last reply. I am against all censorship both by and against collective shout
I don’t think censoring collective shout helps any of this
I’m not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.
My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it’s wrong to take down a Nazi website.
I don’t think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it’s still a political position and protected. But if the people you’re paying to host your shit don’t want anything to do with you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I don’t think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.
I also don’t think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.
I think there’s a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren’t welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there’s no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.