I don't know what the back story is, but the easy argument (if I was going to take that position, trying to be good faith about it) is that the government banning a service isn't in any way the same as a service banning an individual, due to power differences, legal allowances, etc. Of course the UK is probably different there in some ways, so maybe it's less different than it is here in the US.
Either way, it's wrong of the government to ban rumble because they're butthurt, but the UK doesn't allow for actual rights, nor does most of the west.
Isn't that literally censorship? The actual definition of the government silencing people? And those same people are quiet? Lovely, isn't it? The whole "it's a private company" cannot even be used here so that's also out which is why they are silent.
Well yeah. Without knowing the back story, I can't really be more specific. But I think we can all agree that banning some things (eg leftists) would make our lives better. Is it censorship? Yes. But I'm trying to win, not trying to play to some higher standard while we lose.
It's good that you're playing devil's advocate, because it forces the rest of us to not spout off nonsense because no one challenges what we say.
To be more specific, they claim that governments like Texas restricting the ability of platforms to ban people is a violation of 'free speech rights'. And in fact, some idiot courts have struck such downs such bans as a First Amendment violation.
That would mean that governments forcing platforms to ban content is good and appropriate, and definitely not a violation of free speech rights, while governments forcing platforms to allow free speech is a violation of free speech rights.
We live in an upside-down world, so in that way it makes sense, but it certainly makes no logical sense.
Following that, I'd say that the government (Texas, in your example) recognizes that social media is the new public square, and shouldn't allow censorship.
I can see the logic there. The courts banning them are (imo) in the wrong because of that, but there's a legal history there and I'm probably more pro free speech than most people here (I'm also probably more pro playing by the lefts rules and removing them from power by any means possible than most).
Going back to your example about the other people who aren't talking, I can't say I understand that point of view. If I was trying to agree with them in good faith, I'd try to be consistent with small government principles, and note that a bigger government is historically bad. And I agree with smaller government being generally better, but sometimes they need to act, so I can't actually support that pov.
Another angle you can approach this from is that these businesses aren't acting like a business but are being ran similar to organised crime operating behind the scenes where basic consumer rights are being breached.
I don't know what the back story is, but the easy argument (if I was going to take that position, trying to be good faith about it) is that the government banning a service isn't in any way the same as a service banning an individual, due to power differences, legal allowances, etc. Of course the UK is probably different there in some ways, so maybe it's less different than it is here in the US.
Either way, it's wrong of the government to ban rumble because they're butthurt, but the UK doesn't allow for actual rights, nor does most of the west.
Isn't that literally censorship? The actual definition of the government silencing people? And those same people are quiet? Lovely, isn't it? The whole "it's a private company" cannot even be used here so that's also out which is why they are silent.
Well yeah. Without knowing the back story, I can't really be more specific. But I think we can all agree that banning some things (eg leftists) would make our lives better. Is it censorship? Yes. But I'm trying to win, not trying to play to some higher standard while we lose.
It's good that you're playing devil's advocate, because it forces the rest of us to not spout off nonsense because no one challenges what we say.
To be more specific, they claim that governments like Texas restricting the ability of platforms to ban people is a violation of 'free speech rights'. And in fact, some idiot courts have struck such downs such bans as a First Amendment violation.
That would mean that governments forcing platforms to ban content is good and appropriate, and definitely not a violation of free speech rights, while governments forcing platforms to allow free speech is a violation of free speech rights.
We live in an upside-down world, so in that way it makes sense, but it certainly makes no logical sense.
Following that, I'd say that the government (Texas, in your example) recognizes that social media is the new public square, and shouldn't allow censorship.
I can see the logic there. The courts banning them are (imo) in the wrong because of that, but there's a legal history there and I'm probably more pro free speech than most people here (I'm also probably more pro playing by the lefts rules and removing them from power by any means possible than most).
Going back to your example about the other people who aren't talking, I can't say I understand that point of view. If I was trying to agree with them in good faith, I'd try to be consistent with small government principles, and note that a bigger government is historically bad. And I agree with smaller government being generally better, but sometimes they need to act, so I can't actually support that pov.
Another angle you can approach this from is that these businesses aren't acting like a business but are being ran similar to organised crime operating behind the scenes where basic consumer rights are being breached.