Democrats are giddy seeing their intellectual opponents silenced and after telling conservatives that if they didn’t like how they were treated on social media, to create their own platform, and now celebrate that platform being shut down.
Karma has not been repealed.
“Imagine the power to censor in the hands of you worst enemy.”
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I guess there is a risk that the scum will go underground to plan more violence and bloodshed because they can’t get what they want.
Of course, they already went to Parler. But the big companies were not thrilled to be an accomplice to murder and insurrections. Understandable to most people.
I think 81 million people need to be listened to also. It is not all about Trump and his followers. They are in the minority and may have to wait their turn at the next election. Trying to destroy the Capitol and kill the VP is really not a good thing.
People do rise up when grievances are real. Hunger, torture, gulags, beatings, economic privation, show trials, religious persecution are all good reasons to rebel.
Not liking the results of an election that by all metrics was as fair and open as any in recent history is not in the same category. Sorry, but the rule of law needs to be observed. There are a lot of people guilty of murder, attempted murder, insurrection, forced entry, etc. If they all get their day in court, we might see the rule of law again.
I think that the rejection of Parler, and possibly others, is a repudiation of conspiracy minded thugs and their enablers. Civility is a learned experience and school for some starts today.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 4 people
If we silence 74 million because 81 million don’t want to hear what they say, you have everything bad about democracy right there.
LikeLike
But the right has wanted to ignore the will of the 81 million. You are not listening to them at all. As a matter of fact, Trump and his enablers wanted to eliminate any voice in governance by those 81 million. They spent 2 months trying to shut them out of the election.
Conservatives can still use Twitter, Facebook, etc. as much as they want so long as they don’t incite violence. The right has made violence the go to action. From accelerators at the demonstrations this last summer to the assault and murders in the attack on the Capitol.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Baloney
Show me where Prager U or Heartland has advocated violence. Show me where John Stossel has
LikeLike
You know there are other Twitter users than those 3. A few thousand of Trump followers seem to have missed their posts, I guess.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Here is a list of people and organizations banned, temporarily or permanently, from Twitter. Seems that there are a variety on both sides of the aisle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone who spreads LIES that a patriotic person might respond to with violence is culpable of whatever violence that follows. The LIE that the “election was stolen” is such a LIE.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes I know, anyone who disagrees with you should be silenced for the greater good.
LikeLike
Uh, the actual point I was making was that your defense of these “conservative” web sites – that they did not explicitly advocate the violence that occurred – missed the mark because it was the LIES themselves that provoked the violence.
The law recognizes that violence can be provoked by “fighting words.” These LIES spread by Trump and his propagandists and enablers CLEARLY had the effect of fighting words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Censor this! Under the category of “Ya can’t fix stupid”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was bewildered by the use of “intellectual opponents” in the opening post comment.
And “stupid” like this is ONE of the reasons why….
LikeLiked by 2 people
The biggest threat to democracy in America is a Sadat moment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scary, but true.
One of the freshmen Congress members wants to take her gun to the Capital.
As a member of the cult she would pose a clear and present danger to our leadership.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Intellectual opponents?” Trump? Purveyors of dangerous “alternative facts” would be more accurate.
“Intellectual opponents” grapple with alternative responses to the exigencies of a SHARED REALITY. Think William Buckley versus Noam Chomsky. Or, more prosaically, think Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney. The “conservatives” for whom you are whining are nothing but bald-faced liars. And THAT is why their “voices” are no longer welcome on for-profit media. Not because they are conservative. Not because they want to promote conservative responses to open questions. Because they are liars and worse.
As for Democrats being “giddy”, that is you projecting. “Relieved” would be a better word, because unlike “conservatives”, we see the “marketplace of ideas” being swamped with “alternative facts” as a bad thing. A dangerous thing. And events have proven that we are right.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The fact that you think your dismissing the opinions of others as ‘alternative facts’ that must be suppressed without showing why that is the case is a good demonstration of your fascist heart.
If someone disagree with you, you think that makes them a liar.
LikeLike
“If someone disagree with you, you think that makes them a liar.“ Laughable.
Sad that you can’t see his obvious point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You keep calling me a “fascist.” You are apparently not able to look in the mirror with enough objectivity to know that your projection is transparent to all but your fellow Trump cultists. Fascists hate democracy. You hate democracy. Your constant “fascist” slanders are very clearly projection.
Once again, the distinction between proffers of facts and proffers of opinion is a reasonably clear one which, for some reason, has you flummoxed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascists come to power by means of democracy. Once they have power, they silence and suppress their opposition with scapegoating and oppression.
If that’s starting to look like a mirror…
LikeLike
In actual history, fascists have come to power by lies, demonization of minorities, manufactured violence, armed thugs, attacks on the free press, intimidation of the opposition. In fact, the very tactics that Donald Trump has been employing since he came down that escalator.
His final attempt to stay in power by the manufactured violence at the Capitol has alarmed non-stupid, non-ignorant people because of that actual history of how these fascists have taken power in other countries. You want to dismiss that manufactured violence, mayhem and murder as “trespassing.”
But you say that I am the fascist. I should be angry at your continued insults along these lines, but actually I am not because it is pretty obvious the sort of troubled intellect it takes to spew them. This is not me being hyperbolic. There is something seriously wrong with you. There really is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beautifully summed up; “relieved” indeed…
Getting back to a common view of reality is going to be a struggle and the GOP seditionists in Congress being removed can be a good start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because silencing opponents is easier that debating them?
LikeLike
Removing seditionists does not silence them.
And you can’t debate a cultists who have denied basic facts and have loss the ability to reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I they were only political opponents, it would be bad. But they are seditionists, liars, purveyors of bullshit and foes of the democratic process.
A point of grammatical order. Only governments can LEGALLY censor. That is NOT the case here. Removing dangerous content is strictly a business decision.
If it would negatively effect their bottom line, these PRIVATE companies would not be doing it. By doing it, they are protecting their bottom line. A market based move if ever there was one. – IMO.
I’m surprised that you are attacking the market, Don. You tend to be the one to say the market can solve all issues. Oh wait. YOUR market, not one based in the real business woorld.
LikeLike
I did not say private companies could not censor what is on their platform.
But I have criticized the glee of liberals in celebrating it.
Further, CONTENT providers, like magazines and opinion TV shows are held accountable for libel and slander.
PLATFORM providers get section 230 protections from liability because they are a pass through for the opinions of others.
That is not a market matter, It is special protection they get because they are supposedly neutral platforms.
If they accept the broad spectrum of opinion but filter it so only one opinion comes through, they have effectively become content providers, just like someone making shadow puppets.
So, if the filter opinion to determine what content is expressed, they should lose those section 230 protections.
LikeLike
It IS a market matter. But you only see that when it is in one of your approved markets.
LikeLike
In your pitiful eagerness to play your victim cards you again and again sweep past the crucial distinction between expressing an opinion and telling LIES. The offense of those being blocked by social media companies is spreading LIES. There are plenty of voices expressing very conservative opinions on social media who are not affected by a policy of eliminating chronic LIARS.
All of your whining is based – apparently – on your inability to see the important difference between facts and “alternative facts.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Still battling straw men?
Try to stay on topic.
Section 230 protections are not part of the free market, they are shields intended for platform providers.
But are they still justified when the platform providers filter what can be said to the point of determining content?
LikeLike
Just a reminder:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This ain’t Congress doing it. And storming the Capitol intent on killing Pence, Pelosi, McConnell and anyone else not on the list of “patriots” who seditiously attempted to overturn a free and fair election, is NOT petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. It is insurrection. (Not trespassing, either.)
LikeLike