Good if yes
No good if no
Will SJMR be banned soon?
-
I don't understand why more people can't see past their own ideological biases and realize that the scale and pace of shutting down the free exchange of ideas is bad. Very bad. Taking the duly elected leader of a major nation off of all social media should be viewed as a sign that you are next. Parlor completely shut down? Right wing talk radio conglomerates telling their right wing hosts that specific topics are off limits? And anyone left of Ron Paul thinks those are good things?
This will not end well, folks. And, please, understand that when you are OK with it and support it when it affects people you don't like, what you are really doing is establishing the precedent that will be used to justify it when someone wants to do it to you and your ilk. Why can't people see that? So sad.
-
I don't understand why more people can't see past their own ideological biases and realize that the scale and pace of shutting down the free exchange of ideas is bad. Very bad. Taking the duly elected leader of a major nation off of all social media should be viewed as a sign that you are next. Parlor completely shut down? Right wing talk radio conglomerates telling their right wing hosts that specific topics are off limits? And anyone left of Ron Paul thinks those are good things?
This will not end well, folks. And, please, understand that when you are OK with it and support it when it affects people you don't like, what you are really doing is establishing the precedent that will be used to justify it when someone wants to do it to you and your ilk. Why can't people see that? So sad.It’s concerning. But they did organize a seditious conspiracy that led to a huge riot with five fatalities. That’s gotta be a significant violation of ToS, no?
-
It�s concerning. But they did organize a seditious conspiracy that led to a huge riot with five fatalities. That�s gotta be a significant violation of ToS, no?
BLM organized a conspiracy that led to many huge riots with large numbers of fatalities. That's gotta be a significant violation of ToS, no? Yet their accounts continuted to operate openly, and nearly all of the US corporate power structure rebranded itself in support of those riots.
-
trump and colleagues lied for months about election fraud. then they lied that congress had the power to overturn the election. these falsities were amplified so loudly that 1 in 5 (or more) uneducated adults believed it was possible, even likely, and that if it didn't happen it was their duty to force a reckoning.
isn't it possible that privately-owned corporations found all this to be a bridge too far and don't want to be associated with it in any capacity, rather than looking at it some partisan issues where they are shutting down the free exchange of ideas?
these people can make their own websites if they want, or start their own podcasts. alex jones's infowars site still gets over 10 million unique visitors a day. heck, they can probably just go on tucker, hannity and ingram and amplify these views.
I don't understand why more people can't see past their own ideological biases and realize that the scale and pace of shutting down the free exchange of ideas is bad. Very bad. Taking the duly elected leader of a major nation off of all social media should be viewed as a sign that you are next. Parlor completely shut down? Right wing talk radio conglomerates telling their right wing hosts that specific topics are off limits? And anyone left of Ron Paul thinks those are good things?
This will not end well, folks. And, please, understand that when you are OK with it and support it when it affects people you don't like, what you are really doing is establishing the precedent that will be used to justify it when someone wants to do it to you and your ilk. Why can't people see that? So sad. -
BLM lied for months about racial disparities in police violence. Then they lied about systemic racism as something that objectively exists, and claimed the American Revolution was fought to defend slavery. These falsities were amplified so loudly that 1 in 5 (or more) uneducated adults believed it was possible, even likely, and that it was their duty to force a reckoning.
-
I don't understand why more people can't see past their own ideological biases and realize that the scale and pace of shutting down the free exchange of ideas is bad. Very bad. Taking the duly elected leader of a major nation off of all social media should be viewed as a sign that you are next. Parlor completely shut down? Right wing talk radio conglomerates telling their right wing hosts that specific topics are off limits? And anyone left of Ron Paul thinks those are good things?
This will not end well, folks. And, please, understand that when you are OK with it and support it when it affects people you don't like, what you are really doing is establishing the precedent that will be used to justify it when someone wants to do it to you and your ilk. Why can't people see that? So sad.Eh. Does Fox News or cnn let anyone come on and give editorials as long as they please?
No. They’re private organizations. They can broadcast whoever they want. Same with social media. How right to free speech got conflated with this is a bit of conservative sleight of hand.
-
^ You're ironically articulating a conservative or right-wing opinion on unfettered ability of big business to act in ways that exert social control. As sociated Press v. United States ruled that private media entities are subject to antitrust law if they act in a way that constrains the marketplace of ideas. Surely at this point we see something approaching pan-sector collusion to constrain discussion of certain ideas that are clearly protected by the First Amendement (questioning whether an election was valid, for example). Why would you want a handful of billionaire monopolist oligarchs to be allowed to determine what everyone can read, say, and think?
-
It?s concerning. But they did organize a seditious conspiracy that led to a huge riot with five fatalities. That?s gotta be a significant violation of ToS, no?
BLM organized a conspiracy that led to many huge riots with large numbers of fatalities. That's gotta be a significant violation of ToS, no? Yet their accounts continuted to operate openly, and nearly all of the US corporate power structure rebranded itself in support of those riots.Organizing a protest is not a crime though, as opposed to being the ring-leader of a seditious conspiracy.
-
^ You're ironically articulating a conservative or right-wing opinion on unfettered ability of big business to act in ways that exert social control. As sociated Press v. United States ruled that private media entities are subject to antitrust law if they act in a way that constrains the marketplace of ideas. Surely at this point we see something approaching pan-sector collusion to constrain discussion of certain ideas that are clearly protected by the First Amendement (questioning whether an election was valid, for example). Why would you want a handful of billionaire monopolist oligarchs to be allowed to determine what everyone can read, say, and think?
Nice point. Remember when republicans opposed Fauxcahontas’s call to break up big tech?
-
This will not end well, folks. And, please, understand that when you are OK with it and support it when it affects people you don't like, what you are really doing is establishing the precedent that will be used to justify it when someone wants to do it to you and your ilk. Why can't people see that? So sad.
This, 100%. People totally don't see how this is going to come back and bite their side. And it probably won't even take that long.
-
I hope so. I’m on this site far too often and always leave for the worse.
About I/P. a.d.d.r/es/s comment: don’t count on it. Even if they were collected, how would “Someone in or near Philadelphia said something mean about so and so in 2019” lead to any charges?
I’m not condoning the personal attacks, I am strongly opposed to them, but nothing can be done about them on a site like this, aside from modding.