Being center right does not imply that one is a radical libertarian. Monopolies should be regulated.

Besides, I think perspectives have changed. We lived in an era where the primary concern with respect to free speech was whether Harry Potter should be in public school libraries. Now we live in one where activists are actively trying to censor public discourse.

How is it that these private corporations subject to federal regulation accountable to democracy have been given an exemption from liability for user submitted content as platforms instead of publishers, but they then turn around and regulate sites vulnerable to their monopolization to as liable for user submitted content? Rules for thee and not for me. Google thinks it should be allowed to curtail the liberty and freedom of others by regulating their content to enforce a political narrative like the true big brother fascists they are, but they'll shriek and moan about federal overreach if we dare say they should be regulated to protect the liberties and freedoms of their users.

tbh, Harry Potter in schools is still a hot topic because Rowling is a TERF.

I often wonder where you go during your hiatus from PaRD.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200616/14390744730/no-google-didnt-demonetize-federalist-not-example-anti-conservative-bias.shtml





It's more like right-wingers are able to suspend certain principles or ideas when they are inconvenient. Illiberalism is very popular these days.

We lived in an era where gay people were told they didn't exist and including them in media was railed against, science was being censored via oil companies buying ads on major networks, and there was an active movement to suppress science in science classes in favor of religion.

We are not now in a fundamentally different era for free speech issues. The difference is that conservatives have been losing for ~10 years, and when conservatives lose their go-to is to change the rules.



It's very much this as well. When conservatives are winning the rules are good and should be respected, and you should work within the bounds of the system by voting with your dollar. When conservatives are losing then the system as a whole needs to be changed to protect them.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 16 2020 07:59pm

because they don't like what free companies say.
Only like companies that tell you what to say

The GOP has given birth to so many extremists that it is common (mal)practice to lump anyone center-right into the category of Fascist. The same is true for center left, if we're speaking candidly. The issue right now is the political parties have such poor leadership that it's nigh impossible to reign all the looneys in, or even cast them out.

John Boehner warned of this back when he was House Majority Leader. He understood we were in an age where the more extreme you are, the more political points you got. If the tea party would have been nipped in the insane bud, the escalation of insanity would never have happened. I still have a lot of respect for that man, even if as Americans we had very different beliefs politically.

A primary issue in these discussions is that the left doesn't have a good grasp on what conservatives actually believe. Conservatives generally oppose monopolies as perversions of an otherwise competitive economic system. Even were they rabid monopolists, though, as I'm sure some libertarians are, we aren't even dealing with a situation where "big government" is being introduced, because there is already applicable legislation on the books.

Take the push to remove section 230 privileges. This is the small government position, as it advocates for eliminating federal legislation that grants privileges to select companies that they would otherwise not naturally enjoy. But instead we get low IQ takes as to how this somehow constitutes censorship of big tech. If that's your take and you're a paid shill, good for you, and I hope you get paid well. But for everyone else it's emblematic of a very poor grasp on what's going on.

Telling gay people that they don't exist is factually incorrect. It's not censorship. Buying ads opposing sensible regulation may be bad for the country, but it's not censorship. And while I think attempts to restrict science-based education in schools are ridiculous, curriculum is certainly within the purview of the school, and not censorship.