all 16 comments

[–]hennaojichan 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

No, Tommy, Antitrust laws were designed to prevent companies from doing whatever they want. Under Clinton those laws were mostly gutted but still apply.

[–]ningyna 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Under Reagan you mean, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama just continued them

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

his list was edited to blame just clinton

[–]hennaojichan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My list was edited for brevity.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

Do you guys know what a strawman is?

It's not "Twitter is a private company, it can do what it wants". It's "Twitter is a private company, your 1st amendment rights aren't being violated when you get booted off".

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

This post may have gone over your head. We are well aware the 1st amendment doesn't necessarily protect neonazi white supremacist trump supporters from corporate censorship. There is a legitmate debate around whether this is legal and ethical, that isnt focused solely on 1A.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

This post may have gone over your head

Or maybe, your reading comprehension just sucks. The quote was "Twitter is a private company that can do what it wants", which the meme then tries to relate to restaurant lockdowns. In reality, the argument was never "Twitter is a private company that can do what it wants", or any such argument which could be construed to mean that they didn't believe that restaurants could be subject to lockdowns. The attempt to say that was their argument is the strawman here.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]jamesK_3rd 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    This fake covid shit gives the impetus for the removal of free speech. They're directly related

    [–]fishbox 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No one is censoring free speech and Twitter is not required to host it.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    strawman

    That word has been ruined. It meant something once, but now it's been so abused that the decent thing is to take Old Strawman out back and put it out of its misery. Let the red fern grow.

    [–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The concept of logical fallacies has been butchered.

    People think if they can spot a fallacy, the argument is wrong, or the statement doesn't add to the conversation. Slippery slopes for example: logical fallacy in that they're not absolute and without exception. Yet they very often hold true and are reasonable to point out in casual conversation.

    [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think this might still be going over your head. The american left is arguing that private companies can legally censor people (yes we know what the first amendment is). Then it is showing you an example of goverment regulation, as to suggest that perhaps we could apply the same.

    [–]fediverseshill 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    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, unless some hipster with a soy beard and a san fran latte decides he should be able to censor your free speech and religious beliefs, then it's A-O-K with us!@

    [–]christnmusicreleases 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    As long as it doesn't break the law. And if it's acting against the interest of others, it risks consumer action.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    yeah for restaurants it's like how food inspectors can inspect and shut the restaurant down if rats are everywhere

    you don't have the right to be unhealthy at a restaurant

    They should bail out restaurant owners but repubs are against that since it doesn't help the rich.

    [–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They should bail out restaurant owners but repubs are against that since it doesn't help the rich.

    ....My family owned a restaurant, democrats killed it by politicizing COVID19. Restaurants on average operate at a 5% profit margin. I know you have no clue what that means, being an ignorant kid, but I'll simplify it: they can't operate at 50% capacity. Let alone 0%.

    Republicans were never in favor of destroying these businesses, and you're not fooling anyone by claiming so. Additionally, many of the "bailout" actions harmed them. It's difficult when you've just got the PPP loan + permission from your tyrannical democrat governor to open up again, and despite paying your teenage servers $18/hr, as opposed to $6 as normal, they're complaining because democrats were giving them a grand per week to not work, which they just lost out on because you offered them their job back (at an astronomically higher rate).