Me: “Twitter is engaging in censorship based on political beliefs. This is exactly a fascist/dictatorial behavior...”
Friend: “yea, well they’re a private company and can do whatever they want”
So I’m trying to figure out the most effective response cause their eyes glaze over when I say “then that makes them a publisher and they should have their section 230 protections revoked” or “well why was it a problem when a baker wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay wedding?”
What is the most effective response that could help them realize the danger in what they are supporting. Obviously it’s so ignorant and hypocritical, but NPC’s are difficult to rationalize with.
why dont you just wait until the child trafficking goes mainstream so you wont have to argue about pointless manufactured talking points; you can just laugh at them for passionately defending pedos and murderers for years.
You care about this point. The other person doesn't. Go back to your blue days. What was things that people said that was true and never pushed you to action? "House is not an asset?", "All fiat currencies default to zero", "baby parts are being sold on the black market". So what was it that actually red pilled you? Then you look back and you say, I knew something was up or wrong. Just keep watering your friendships with what made them grow in the first place. And add some red pill fertilizer. You can't choose when your garden will bloom but you can help with the right conditions. And if a friend says something self harming or poisonous beliefs. Say "I know you don't think that, your actions speak otherwise" and help friends do some weeding in their gardens.
I've seen many people go full truther and lose touch with loved ones because people don't want to keep people around that tell them they are wrong all of the time.
"Yeah man I used to hear all of this bad shit was happening and glaze over and not care... I got problems of my own.... but after I learned ________ I couldn't just ignore this shit anymore."
??♂️
Start with, the Chinese people don’t get any news the CCP doesn’t want them to hear. I’m glad we’re not in China. Twitter is kinda doing the same thing, don’t ya think?
Fascism is when big government teams with big business and controls the population. The government controls the businesses essentially because they have to do whatever the government wants or they won't be able to operate. Twitter is openly siding with one political party over another. They are censoring on their own platform and using their sway to have other platforms censors conservative users. And then silicon valley is getting kickbacks from government spending bills.
This was the main conflict with outlawing segregation. A lot of the places were private companies.
They are not doing what THEY want, they are working FOR a SINGLE political party to SILENCE opposition. From there I would not points in bistory where governmwnts and business/media silence opposition. Usually start with Rwandan Genocide.
Try to get him to grasp the magnitude of the situation. Our own president, the proclaimed Leader of the Free World, had his whole account taken down from Twitter and people are okay with that? Defending censorship of this level is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Then a baker can refuse to bake a cake because they are a private company.
Then a store can refuse anyone wearing a mask because they are a private company.
I know that the big thing about these companies is that despite being private companies, they're awarded protection by the government via Section 230 (from the Communications Decency Act, 1996)--in short, they're allowed to be hosts and are free from liability for what others post...however these companies are acting not as "hosts" (hands off) but as "publishers," (seen with the heavy editing and influence) and so there are lots of questions about whether or not this is legal, as censorship is technically allowed, but for things like violence and obscenity.
"Section 230(c)(1) ensures the free flow of ideas, exempting internet platforms from publisher and distributor liability posted by third parties. In this sense, Section 230(c)(1) provides common carrier protections. Just as telephone companies, broadband service providers, and even courier services like FedEx have no liability for the content of the messages and parcels they carry, neither does Facebook or Twitter.
Section 230(c)(2) was meant to keep things clean. It relieves carriers of liability for efforts to censor or curate content “in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Thus, when Prodigy edits comments for decency, it can do so without becoming a publisher of the entire website."
If anyone is more knowledgeable, please feel free to clarify what's written here, as I'm amateur at best.
There are a lot of good articles regarding this issue--hope it helps!