It’s more of a strawman of a libertarian view. It’s just squid Ink because he has no good justification for denying the election interference, which can be a pretty general concept. And to your point, he’s being snarky about nationalizing twitter without acknowledging that the twitter files show their censorship boards were already infiltrated by dozens of agents from fbi, dhs, and cia.
I'm fundamentally libertarian in principle, but the thing about "actual libertarians" is they ignore OTHER principle/context. Take free trade. OK great, IF every country involved has the same rules. Borders, ok but you can't let just ANYONE in. So this guy argues it's capitalism "as intended" yet there's a vastly bigger picture that invalidates that argument (that would be a good argument absent that context/reality).
And yeah, to your to your point, he seems oblivious to the fact that what's going on here is VASTLY not capitalism, so there is also that.
Right, basically, "libertarian" is too loose so it has to have qualifiers. They let anyone from anarchists (the fastest path to statism) to borderline neocons in because "mUh LiBeRtY"
I'm a libertarian now? Fun! Gotta go update my socials, I guess.
I truly don't understand anything else you're saying. If you want Twitter to be a Free Speech Zone, it needs to be nationalized. Otherwise, as a private entity, they have extremely broad freedom about how they allow people to use their property. And that includes setting privacy rules.
I don't understand what this means either. "In theory, if everyone played by the same rules"? Everyone doesn't have to set the same rules, that would go against freedom of speech. Corporations have the freedom to set the rules for their property as they like. And they also get to enforce those rules as they like, as long as failure to enforce does not cause law breaking to happen on their property (for example, copyright).
Look handshake, "Until Twitter is nationalized" uh the idea is they obviously haven't shaken off the gov't control you seem oblivious to.
You're an obvious example of why libertarians are annoying, drop all actual factual context making your argument.
“Look handshake” kek
It’s more of a strawman of a libertarian view. It’s just squid Ink because he has no good justification for denying the election interference, which can be a pretty general concept. And to your point, he’s being snarky about nationalizing twitter without acknowledging that the twitter files show their censorship boards were already infiltrated by dozens of agents from fbi, dhs, and cia.
I'm fundamentally libertarian in principle, but the thing about "actual libertarians" is they ignore OTHER principle/context. Take free trade. OK great, IF every country involved has the same rules. Borders, ok but you can't let just ANYONE in. So this guy argues it's capitalism "as intended" yet there's a vastly bigger picture that invalidates that argument (that would be a good argument absent that context/reality).
And yeah, to your to your point, he seems oblivious to the fact that what's going on here is VASTLY not capitalism, so there is also that.
I make the distinction that I’m a libertarian nationalist who believes in borders.
Most of the pseudo-libertarian big tech excuses are out the window because the major social media platforms were created by DARPA.
Right, basically, "libertarian" is too loose so it has to have qualifiers. They let anyone from anarchists (the fastest path to statism) to borderline neocons in because "mUh LiBeRtY"
I'm a libertarian now? Fun! Gotta go update my socials, I guess.
I truly don't understand anything else you're saying. If you want Twitter to be a Free Speech Zone, it needs to be nationalized. Otherwise, as a private entity, they have extremely broad freedom about how they allow people to use their property. And that includes setting privacy rules.
Lol no email needed? Your handle is SHILLarious!
I am explicitly not shilling for email or any other product, person, or service
Then what the hell are you doing? It appears like you’re shilling for big brother government
In theory, if everyone played by the same rules and laws, sure. In practice not so much.
I don't understand what this means either. "In theory, if everyone played by the same rules"? Everyone doesn't have to set the same rules, that would go against freedom of speech. Corporations have the freedom to set the rules for their property as they like. And they also get to enforce those rules as they like, as long as failure to enforce does not cause law breaking to happen on their property (for example, copyright).