Except the end result is the same. The government gets to censor the public. "Voluntarily" going along with it doesn't change that fact, and it certainly doesn't change their intentions.
If it were jackboot thugs smiling and having a good time cracking skulls because their boss ordered them to squash a legitimate peaceful protest, no one would be cutting them any slack at all or pretending "cooperating" is just a coincidence.
When your boss asks you to come in on Saturday, its not an order either. You can say no with all policy backing you.
In many workplaces people say yes despite not wanting to because they know that "cooperation" isn't optional. They aren't asking, they are giving themselves plausible deniability while demanding.
Politicians are managers of the system, they aren't bosses.
Hey you know who is usually the "boss" you report to everyday? Its not the CEO of Burger King, its the fucking manager. I don't even understand how you can type such a statement and think its anything worth saying.
they were clearly more than happy to cooperate with whatever entity asked them to to enact & justify more censorship.
This just in, you can't be ordered to do something you want to do. Apparently the world has bent backwards to change definitions of words just for your sake here.
I know when my own boss orders me to go home when I'm not looking 100%, its certainly not what I wanted to do anyway no sir.
I think that the important point of this is from the legal perspective this is not issuing orders, even if not complying ruins your work environment and ends up in a non-compliant worker being dismissed.
That's a dishonest take and you know it.
It's a distinction without a difference.
Its a fundamental distinction if you want to succeed in suing the DNC or the government
Except the end result is the same. The government gets to censor the public. "Voluntarily" going along with it doesn't change that fact, and it certainly doesn't change their intentions.
I suppose that's a fair observation. It would mean Twitter was a willing participant rather than coerced, which makes their actions worse.
It's still the government issuing orders though.
If it were jackboot thugs smiling and having a good time cracking skulls because their boss ordered them to squash a legitimate peaceful protest, no one would be cutting them any slack at all or pretending "cooperating" is just a coincidence.
When your boss asks you to come in on Saturday, its not an order either. You can say no with all policy backing you.
In many workplaces people say yes despite not wanting to because they know that "cooperation" isn't optional. They aren't asking, they are giving themselves plausible deniability while demanding.
Hey you know who is usually the "boss" you report to everyday? Its not the CEO of Burger King, its the fucking manager. I don't even understand how you can type such a statement and think its anything worth saying.
This just in, you can't be ordered to do something you want to do. Apparently the world has bent backwards to change definitions of words just for your sake here.
I know when my own boss orders me to go home when I'm not looking 100%, its certainly not what I wanted to do anyway no sir.
No, but the lucrative cooperation of employee syndicates and government officials sounds a fuck of a lot like Italian Fascism.
The same fascism that the left keep claiming the right is doing.
I think that the important point of this is from the legal perspective this is not issuing orders, even if not complying ruins your work environment and ends up in a non-compliant worker being dismissed.