That certainly would be ideal. That does nothing to actually address the fact that democrats are in power right now and they are not going to heed and condemnation of what they want to accomplish. IOW, this seems like facing an adversary that has nuclear weapons when the best you have is a pop gun.Threatening is the OP and your wording. McConnell warned of consequences which could be something as simple as myself not buying MLB,tv this year and the millions like me. Many people believe that products and sports in particular are not appropriate venues for virtue signaling. You've got tunnel vision boy.Nope. It's not circular. It's not even an argument. I'm asking why McConnel is threatening these companies. It's straight up statist bullying. The bread and butter of authoritarian leftists.You do get the circularity of your argument, right?The implication is that government will punish them. And for what? Speaking their minds? Refusing to do business in a state they think is going off the rails? Pissing of Trumpster twats?
Alright. If you want to pretend he wasn't threatening retribution form government, fine. Hopefully he'll walk it back as well. But I think the message was clear.What should the repuiblicans response be though?Our Open Letter To Facebook - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website
Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Over the past year, the Biden for President campaign has called on Facebook to meet the commitment the company made after 2016 — to use its platform to improve American democracy rather than as a tool to spread disinformation that undermines our elections. The campaign has...joebiden.com
They should condemn Democrats for trying to pressure Facebook into doing their bidding, for the implied threat that their "open letter" clearly contains. Joining them in their attempts to bully the media merely legitimizes what Democrats are doing.
The democrats have already gained control over most of corporate America and certainly have the major 'news' sources outside of FOX. They are openly advocating for republican opinions to essentially become illegal. I cannot think of a more pressing threat to actual democracy.
ALL power when consolidated is antithetical to freedom. The idea that government is somehow a special outlier in this is mistake a lot of libertarians, IMHO, make. I do not care who is holding me hostage or infringing on my rights, just that they are. The government is normally the problem there because we grant the government specific powers that are extreme, like the power to imprison you and infringe on all of your rights. When a few companies gain that power they invariably use it to becomes so intertwined with government that there is almost no difference.The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now. So have the republicans so this is not new. Did you listen to the senate hearing with the tech giants? Considering the current push, stay out of this is likely the most hands off message they can send.
However, you now have a group of tech companies that holds MORE power over the dissemination of speech than the government does.
That's as it should be, and how it's pretty much always been. Government should have zero power over the dissemination of speech. That's the point of the First Amendment.
Is Boeing a company or a governmental apparatus? Is the 'company' that brings you your power a governmental arm? What about the Federal Reserve? How long until twitter is just another extension of the government?
The right pf speech is what the entire idea of self governance and separation of powers rests in. Without that, there is no other freedoms as there is absolutely no means to protect them.
I cannot see any real way to differentiate a power that is held by cabal of tech companies that tie speech directly to the success of a specific political party, a political party that is threatening to 'regulate' policies within those companies and also ensuring that they are never threatened by real competition, as that is what such regulation will accomplish, with the government applying that power directly. The outcomes are the same, a political entity with direct power over the public discourse.
It was a test run and the backlash here prevented it in this singular instance. You are kidding yourself if you think that this was a one off and there is no indication of such. The book burnings have continued and the rhetoric is increasing. They are just finding out how quickly they can control the discourse, not if they can or should.Damn near? Whatever control Amazon has over the internet, we give them. It's entirely voluntary and we can revoke it at any time. If we give that power to government instead, revoking it will be considerably more difficult.Amazon damn near controls the internet.
Exactly. The backlash prevented it.When they decided that Parlor needed to go that was that. The entire company would have simply vanished if not for the backlash.
Private wealth does, yes.What do you do when corporate interests gain power that is equal to that of the government?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, in a free country, private wealth (including corporate interests), has more power to shape society than the government does. That's as it should be.
A private individual or entity does not. The difference here is how diffuse power is. The danger with power, any power, is not necessarily the power itself but how concentrated it is. If I can control what you are allowed to say or hear, I can control what you think. Its 1984 projected in reality.
Last edited: