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.
I am floored that I agree with that piece of shit, but… here we are.
What a weird time to live in.
Tucker is scared because kimmel and other media personalities are getting nuked. That’s his money flow at risk, nothing else.
Ya know there a principle I am rather fond of, doing good for bad reasons is still good. While Carlson may be a shitstain undeserving of his kneecaps and while he may be doing a good thing for bad reasons, well I’ll take what I can get. We are effectively shrieking into the void like the banshee outside of my window, nobody hears us but they do hear Carlson.
Probably, but it’s smart to take allies where you can find them. A lot of right-wingers pay attention to Carlson, and his stance is hitting where left-leaning sources have no pull.
Plus if successful at turning us from our allies based on misplaced motivation, they would just lie about those motivations more to us. Then lie to the other side about our own motivations for stuff we agree with them on.
He came out in opposition to the Iranian war and was given Ted Cruz the fuck you treatment calling him a dumbass on it. I think that was before Colbert got fired.
If he was scared, he would have kept his mouth shut. This is praiseworthy
Carlson might also be peeved at Trump suddenly being passive aggressive on Russia.
Similar thing for me recently. Learned musk is against collective shouts censorship. Made me really evaluate why I was against it. Still against it. Censorship limits freedom of speech but so does deplatforming the censors. Weird times
Sure, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. I agree with this one thing that Tucker said. I vehemently disagree with pretty much every single other thing he says, or has said.
Yeah same in my situation basically. Also he wants to harass and censor collective shout. It’s not the right way to address this. ACLU already looking into financial censorship and payment procssors. That’s the way I want it handled. Legally and sanely
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 wouldn’t say it’s ignoring it. I’m incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I’m not as bothered by it happening: it doesn’t have real consequences.
If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can’t get around. You can’t go to a platform that doesn’t mind and keep going.
If the government leans on a company, first of all that’s still government censorship and it’s not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it’s still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there’s not really anything they can do.
There’s a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.
I’ve worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you’re willing to take that support request or if you’re letting your manager know you’re not gonna help that message.
If the employees at a company don’t want to help you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it’s wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.
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.