Isn't blocking internet sites censorship?
On Twitter, despite it influencing public opinion, you still have agency over whom you follow. Without it, I suspect the average person will get their news from TV and newspapers during that time.
Do you trust Journalists and TV more than the people whom you follow on Social Media?
Do you trust Journalists and TV more than the people whom you follow on Social Media?
Is zero more than zero?
I don't follow people on social media.
Me neither.
But do you read Tweets by Trump? Or watch videos that were uploaded to Twitter? For example, someone uploading their mobile recording from current events. I see such videos frequently on poal and prior to that on voat.
And arguably, even poal is a form social media.
No twatter of faceberg for me. If this or voat is social media then I guess I'm guilty.
The only thing worse than censorship is manufactured consensus. That's the even more evil thing these companies are doing than censorship.
If I ran a country I would be very suspicious of major company's manipulating the population into believing it believes certain things.
It's an absolute threat to the will of the people being in control of a country. So if you want to have a democracy, the actions of these companies is unworkable. The real solution if you want to be anti-censoship purist (I know I do), is to use a political system that isn't fragile in these circumstances. Monarchy would be an option. Then these companies can manipulate any opinion they like. It isn't relevant to the political system.
Then anyone can say anything they want or run a company however they want, because it has no threat of throwing a fragile political structure into disarray.
As long as nations choose to use fragile political systems, certain false consensus tactics are an absolute threat to their intended operation.
Imagine defending the right to speak for satanic pedos.
Why would I imagine that?
Yeah, you don't have to because you are literally defending satanic pedos.
(post is archived)