Zuckerberg going Libertarian?

[rodoheel]

"Second of all, having your speech removed from a social media post (or keeping other people from seeing that post) is not really an infringement on a constitutional right anyway, because you weren't prevented from or punished for speaking...."

Wow. Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the ground.

Speechless.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You think the right to have unlimited other people see your social media post is an "essential liberty"?

 

[JCTarheel82]

Anyone know if the federal government can prohibit recreational contrarianism?

Asking for an online message board.

 

[finesse]

Anyone know if the federal government can prohibit recreational contrarianism?

Asking for an online message board.

God, I hope not.

 

[ZenMode]

You think the right to have unlimited other people see your social media post is an "essential liberty"?

Would you allow the government to limit the viewing of any other public display? A house decorated for Christmas? A public memorial? A public event like a state fair?

If there were a guy in the corner holding a sign, would you let the government limit how many people can see that sign?

 

[Healing]

How many times, in the last two pages alone, has it been clarified that the government ASKED for misinformation to come down, NOT “limit” or forced or coerced or or or … ? Yet, Zen wants to reset the narrative every few posts by framing this as government coercion. It wasn’t.

Zen is completely full of shit and engages in bad faith time after time after time after time…

 

[ZenMode]

How many times, in the last two pages alone, has it been clarified that the government ASKED for misinformation to come down, NOT “limit” or forced or coerced or or or … ? Yet, Zen wants to reset the narrative every few posts by framing this as government coercion. It wasn’t.

Zen is completely full of shit and engages in bad faith time after time after time after time…

I've acknowledged that the government only asked. For multiple reasons, which I've mentioned, I don't think they should ask.

 

[rodoheel]

Would you allow the government to limit the viewing of any other public display? A house decorated for Christmas? A public memorial? A public event like a state fair?

If there were a guy in the corner holding a sign, would you let the government limit how many people can see that sign?

First of all, for like the 500th time, the government isn't limiting anyone's speech directly. This was the government asking the social media companies to limit the reach of people's posts. Not ban any posters; not jail them; not tell them to stop posting; not turn off their internet or social media access; etc. You keep positing hypotheticals that don't match the facts at all, even if you want to make some loose analogy between social media and speaking to people in person despite those two things not really being remotely comparable.

Second of all, as I posted previously on the thread (and you ignored), there is a long line of Supreme Court precedent addressing that lying can be regulated and stopped when it causes harm. You are acting like we crossed the Rubicon here with the government asking for speech it believed was harmful to be taken down.

Again, so few people in this country have any idea what government tyranny really looks like that people will act like the smallest thing is some grave imposition on their "liberty" or "freedom." This is such a nothingburger from both a practical and constitutional perspective. You thinking the government shouldn't "ask" in this scenario does not mean it's a grave constitutional violation.

 

[Healing]

First of all, for like the 500th time, the government isn't limiting anyone's speech directly. This was the government asking the social media companies to limit the reach of people's posts. Not ban any posters; not jail them; not tell them to stop posting; not turn off their internet or social media access; etc. You keep positing hypotheticals that don't match the facts at all, even if you want to make some loose analogy between social media and speaking to people in person despite those two things not really being remotely comparable.

Second of all, as I posted previously on the thread (and you ignored), there is a long line of Supreme Court precedent addressing that lying can be regulated and stopped when it causes harm. You are acting like we crossed the Rubicon here with he government asking for speech it believed was harmful to be taken down.

Again, so few people in this country have any idea what government tyranny really looks like that people will act like the smallest thing is some grave imposition on their "liberty" or "freedom." This is such a nothingburger from both a practical and constitutional perspective. You thinking the government shouldn't "ask" in this scenario does not mean it's a grave constitutional violation.

Thank you for your yoeman’s effort and patience, my friend.