Google shadowbans "DEI detected"
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
Not sure why Asmongold felt the need to go on a pro-regulation rant.
Like, I get the principle, but what's the "privilege" in question? Not being fucked by the government? That should be the default. The idea that free speech is a privilege (and I know that's not exactly the same thing) is incredibly fucking dangerous ground to cede.
Then he responds to someone in chat:
One of my least favorite arguments. Some people just can't wrap their head around basic logic. Just because "every single thing in your entire life is regulated by the government" does not mean that's a good thing. Just because it currently exist does not mean it's good. Nor, importantly, does it make it 'like water to a fish,' necessary to survive.
If everything was on fire, you wouldn't say that saying we should have less fire is like a fish saying we need less water, or a mammal saying we need less air. No, in that instance, we clearly fucking need less fire. It doesn't matter if everything in our life is currently on fire, that doesn't mean we should keep it that way, because that's currently how it is. "Everything in your life is on fire, and you're saying fire is bad, you're delusional!"
Also, to get less abstract...how is the government taking control and being in charge of the powers that corporations are currently abusing (often at the direct behest of the government!) a better situation? You're just cutting out the middleman.
This really shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who knows anything about the boy. He floats between being a contrarian for its own sake, and a fence-sitter. He has no position of his own. It's funny when sycophants try to tell me I supposedly have "literally no idea what kind of person he is." Asmon has continued to pop up on my radar over the last decade, against my best efforts, and each time I am reminded just who he is.
He's just a dimwit vaguely parroting a telephone game'd version of the argument about revoking the section 230 privileges, probably.
Which if he actually was able to articulate might do some good. Because the publisher vs platform distinction has been abused to hell and back. Either you do control content and can be held liable, or you let the platform exist unmolested and are protected from liability. Controlling content makes you a publisher - but these sites keep platform protections (because they actually serve at the deep state's behest).
Oh, I know. I'm offended at the question itself, not at who asked it. I know he's sort of midwitty.
That's kind of that same argument, to be fair. Freedom of the press means freedom of the press, whether you're a 'platform' or a 'publisher.' The government doesn't get to censor you, either way. I don't really see the distinction. No matter how tightly or loosely they moderate what happens on their site, if they're publishing/platforming legal content, the government needs to butt out.
The platform vs publisher argument isn't about which are vulnerable to government censorship. It's about those places (social media, search engines) purporting to be platforms engaging in censorship, but retaining the platform protections.
Platforms are protected from legal liability for what users post. Publishers are not. To be a platform you can't exercise editorial control over the posted material outside of barring actually illegal things. Every social media corp that engages in censorship of opinions they dislike should lose their platform protections. Since those corps have been censoring users, often in behalf of the deep state, they should lose liability protection.
If you took liability protection from facebook or google or what have you, they'd either instantly be destroyed or be forced to stop being censorious goblinoids to regain their protection.