Quote (Goomshill @ 23 Jun 2020 23:59)

Meanwhile in NC, the Republican base went far-right and ignored Trump's endorsed pragmatic centrist candidate to nominate this guy:

https://www.madisoncawthorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/40bf220d2415f412b7e27547aa4a936321dc4543035724702eff5edc0b5eecdf.jpg

Quote (excellence @ Jun 23 2020 11:28pm)

LOL

Quote (bogie160 @ 23 Jun 2020 23:30)

Primarily because of the impact it can / is having on civic and political discourse. An underpinning of American civil society is tolerance of opposing viewpoints. Most people would agree that you should not ostracize a work colleague because they voted for a different candidate, for instance, because political fortune can be fickle and you can quickly find yourself ostracized in turn. Besides, the existence of alternative viewpoints in and of itself promotes a healthier and more robust discourse. It's also important to place this in context of the times. Whereas it might have been possible to move localities in the past to get away from oppressive social dynamics, that's often no longer the case. The internet makes it shockingly easy to find and harass others across vast geographic space. And whereas it might have been difficult for someone with an axe to grind to be taken seriously, it's now incredibly easy to circulate accusations, unfounded or otherwise, to hundreds of thousands of like minded individuals. With no vetting mechanics in place, it's incredibly easy to lobby companies to fire employees for perceived offenses, with no semblance of a fair public trial. The company could resist, but almost certainly won't, because the value of one employee is often insignificant compared with even a small number of protestors.

When talking specifically about Twitter, Facebook, and the like, there is a concern that society is handing censor powers over to a handful of privacy monopolies/oligopolies who have no competitors in their particular spheres, who remain in an excellent position to prevent the emergence of competitors, and who are completely unaccountable and opaque in terms of the exercise of the discretion handed to them. The internet has evolved into a public space and a forum for public discussion. It's not acceptable to allow for privacy companies to abuse monopolistic privileges in order to control public discourse, especially not when they're being given privileged legal immunity in exchange for fostering and promoting the exact opposite.

It's important to also distinguish between "forcing someone to buy trans-porn" (Skinned's argument) and coercive attempts to silence alternative thought that is almost never targeted towards those most outraged. It's one thing for me to say "I dislike MSNBC, and will never watch it." and quite another for me to attempt and coerce other companies through threats and intimidation to force MSNBC off the air. When we've reached the point where advocates for serious police reform are being forced to apologize for "distracting" from efforts to defund the police, a radical proposal than even the mainstream left finds dangerous and absurd, we've gone beyond the pale. When discussing whether or not Twitter should claim that Trump is "threatening" or abusing "identifiable groups" when he promises to enforce the law, we should probably ask first whether Twitter is acting in a sane or appropriate manner, and then second debate whether they have the "right" to do that. It's readily apparent that Twitter's position is both ridiculous and hypocritical in the extreme. If we've reached the point (as it seems) where a large segment of society agrees that illegally and violently occupying public space is "peaceful protest", and enforcement of the law is "violent / illegal action", then we've truly achieved Orwellian double-think, and there's no hope left.