LogFAQs > #954702104

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Twitter BANS famous feminist Naomi Wolf. Did she deserve it?
joe40001 06/06/21 9:58:12 AM #47:	monkmith posted... until the twitter police go to her house and physically gag her you're argument is complete shit and without merit. she can go to any random street-corner and scream about her conspiracy she wants, she can start her own website and blog to her hearts content, hell she's probably gonna get picked up by fox news for this... but until the literal state blocks her from speaking she's not having her rights to free speech violated The entire spirit of free speech is being violated if a person is removed from all modern means of communicating. If you don't think it would be fair to ban her from speaking on the internet entirely, and you acknowledge that the main social media sites have a near monopoly on platforms for speech on the internet, then you are basically acknowledging that she shouldn't be banned. And considering sites like Parlor were taken down by AWS idk if it's necessarily true these people can just go to a competitor. If she started a blog where she said the same shit and then AWS shut it down, would you really defend her in that context or would you just be like "Amazon has a right to deny servers to anybody they like". What if they cut her electricity and froze her bank accounts. Would you still go "the electric company and the banks have a right to deny service to anybody they like." At some point you can see how we can give companies too much power, right? --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:954702104] in Twitter BA... [t:79497088]...</cite> <quote>monkmith posted... </cite> <quote>until the twitter police go to her house and physically gag her you're argument is complete shit and without merit. she can go to any random street-corner and scream about her conspiracy she wants, she can start her own website and blog to her hearts content, hell she's probably gonna get picked up by fox news for this... but until the literal state blocks her from speaking she's not having her rights to free speech violated</quote> The entire spirit of free speech is being violated if a person is removed from all modern means of communicating. If you don't think it would be fair to ban her from speaking on the internet entirely, and you acknowledge that the main social media sites have a near monopoly on platforms for speech on the internet, then you are basically acknowledging that she shouldn't be banned. And considering sites like Parlor were taken down by AWS idk if it's necessarily true these people can just go to a competitor. If she started a blog where she said the same shit and then AWS shut it down, would you really defend her in that context or would you just be like "Amazon has a right to deny servers to anybody they like". What if they cut her electricity and froze her bank accounts. Would you still go "the electric company and the banks have a right to deny service to anybody they like." At some point you can see how we can give companies too much power, right? --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1