So, just curious where you fall on the whole bake cake for a gay wedding argument?
You seem to be for the rights of who owns company in this argument.
Will the cake belong to the baker or to the purchaser? If the platform belongs to the person purchasing the cake, does the baker have the right to control the contents of that platform? On the other hand, if a person walked into a black bakery and asked for a cake with a burning cross and a noose, should that bakery be required to prepare it?
I have been supportive of the cake purchasers in the past, and perhaps a little too much so. Can the law decently parse the difference between the needs of the more-oppressed groups and the oppressors in this case? I don't think there is a good resolution here.
Its weird isnt it? There is this never ending stream of hypocrisy that flows from the arguments on the left. For every argument you make, there is a counter argument that shows your hypocrisy.
Perhaps when you choose to take the time and effort to put in a decent argument, I can that that statement more seriously.
If you were consistent, your thoughts would be something like this...
Capitalism bad and giant Corporations bad= Tech giants having a monopoly not good
Even if I were to agree with that (and I certainly don't think it is anything that simple), how does that change the issue of people being denied access to an individual platform?
Facebook was not the first company of it's kind, it may not be last. However, I think the very idea of social networking will encourage congregation to a single platform, so monopolization may be unavoidable. Should the government therefore take over Facebook? I don't like that idea.
Rights for everyone good = rights for everyone including people you disagree with still good
Agreed.
Instead, you and the left come off more like this...
Capitalism bad and giant Corporations bad= bad if it effects me, good if it hurts someome else
Do you really think your position is immune from this sort of parody? I could make equally simplistic, stupid statements mocking you, but what would be the point?
BTW, online and social platforms aren't just someone's company. They are the equivalent of town square.
Town squares were publicly owned and controlled. Are you advocating for a government takeover of Facebook? Do you think we have a right to tell Facebook how they can best make money (and let's get real, if Facebook is banning someone, it's because that person hurts their bottom line).
Besides, Facebook and Twitter didnt build that on their own, amarite? (<See what I did there)
Joens, et. al., still have the right to the same common infrastructure as Facebook uses.
