| |
| ▲ | nick__m 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There a significant difference between a paid PR campaign and a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal. Parent didn't said silence the rich, he says ban PR stories. Personally I would ban unattributed PR. If Larry Ellison want to buy a thousand billboard and write: "Don't taxe me or I will leave. I am Larry and endorse this message" that's ok. But if he use a PR firm to shift the public opinion with unattributed advertisement and paid-for journal articles that should not be acceptable. Alas the US Supreme Court decied otherwise in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... | |
| ▲ | barbazoo 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Always? | |
| ▲ | ghurtado 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, we've been reading a lot in the media lately about the LEFT attacking free speech with unprecedented zeal and cancelling all manner of right wing opinions, shows and pundits that don't support their dogma 100%. Wait, no. The exact opposite is happening. My bad, it's easy to get confused. | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are we ignoring the vast censorship schemes on social media that all lean left? You can’t discuss certain topics or viewpoints in these public squares at all. Both sides are capable of acting against a free speech. But I think in the last 10 years in America, it has been the left acting against it. | | |
| ▲ | Capricorn2481 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you name a platform capable of censorship, other than Reddit, that leans left? | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | From my experience, YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook. I can't personally say about BlueSky, but I heard it is a very left leaning also. | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | TikTok. Bluesky (more nuances here). YouTube. Maybe it has reduced a bit in YouTube. But it’s still there. | | |
| ▲ | HankStallone 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Last year, YouTube removed a video I posted in 2017, supposedly for "medical misinformation." When I watched my copy to see what the heck they were talking about, I had to laugh, because I wasn't sharing a medical opinion at all. I was pointing to vaccines as an example of an issue on which Google might someday censor one side if things continued as they were going. Nice of them to prove my point, I guess. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You must have been asleep for the last 10+ years when leftist cancel culture was all the rage. Should I remind you how LEFT reacted to deplatforming Trump, Parler, Gab, firing of Carlsen? Everyone of note cheered for it and celebrated. Now, when they are getting some slight taste of their own medicine and act very very upset: they can't to that to us!!! | |
| ▲ | gadders 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's easy to get confused if you have amnesia and forget the previous presidential term. | |
| ▲ | djohnston 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Shooting someone through the throat with a high-powered rifle during a university debate certainly seems like an attack on free speech, but maybe I don't have your nuanced understanding of the issue. | | |
| ▲ | ghurtado 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't have your nuanced understanding of the issue. Let me help unconfuse you, then: - government swiftly, immediately and directly cancelling a show from a private company because someone said something that's not good for "the party": attack on free speech. - murder of Charlie Kirk: politically motivated murder by a deranged psycho, which is immediately exploited to AMPLIFY right wing views and cancel left wing ones. So tell me again, based on what one is currently allowed to say about this very topic: what ideas is the right no longer able to express openly and loudly as a result of this murder? Don't say "Charlie Kirk": I've heard more of his ideas in recent weeks than I would have if he hadn't been shot. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > government swiftly, immediately and directly cancelling a show from a private company That appears to be a false statement. Private company made that decision on their own after public pressured it to. A fitting quote by no other but Mr Kimmel himself, who said this in a very similar situation: I want to say kudos to my bosses at ABC for doing the right thing and canceling Roseanne’s show today. It’s not an easy thing to do when a show is successful, but it’s the right thing. | |
| ▲ | djohnston 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > and cancel left wing ones. "Left ones" being, celebrating murder? Assuming you weren't living under a rock for the past decade, do you think celebrating murder is less severe than right-wing views (critical of BLM, critical of feminism, critical of pro-choice) that were routinely cancelled by left-wing institutions (social media, university) over this time frame? | | |
| ▲ | text0404 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Please tell us how Matthew Dowd celebrated Kirk's murder? Or Kimmel? Furthermore, celebrating murder is still free speech. For example, we've had to endure years of jokes about the murders of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin, the flame continuously stoked by Charlie Kirk and his colleagues. Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for. Pointing this out is not celebrating murder. | | |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side. In fact, strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere. So all arguments that "he wouldn't get assassinated if we didn't have 2nd amendment" are simply not valid and proven wrong. Since I think you didn't really read into the full text of a quote in question, I'll provide you a link [0]. [0]: https://cleverjourneys.com/2025/09/15/full-text-of-charlie-k... | | |
| ▲ | text0404 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Your link doesn't prove me wrong? It's what he said: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." That's his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost. > This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side. Thanks for projecting! Try to focus on what we're discussing instead of descending into ad hominem. > strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere I'm not discussing political assassinations, and neither was Kirk. I'm discussing Kirk's own views on gun violence in the United States and the "cost" of unrestricted access to firearms, of which he himself was a victim. Political assassinations are a small subset of this "cost." Would you like to compare the number of mass shooting events in these countries, or is it too inconvenient that the US is #1 in mass/school shootings? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
