Charlie Kirk’s wife then. My point is, do you see the glaring flaw in your logic that is apparent from about 30s of thought, and is the context in which the first amendment was written in?
You want us (the govt) to force Nexstar (a private entity) to host Kimmel’s (another private entity) speech. But if it were Trump (the govt) forcing CNN (a private entity) to host Tucker Carlson (another private entity) you would be in the comments about how it’s a fascist move. The thing is, it always was.
You understand that the Fediverse is literally built on the idea of a bunch of private entities each owning their piece of a distributed communication platform, right? You are a private entity.
Are you actually just arguing against freedom of the press and suggesting that only the state should control the means of communication? So only Trump would tell us what the news is? If so, then we simply disagree.
As a distributed platform nobody “owns” the fediverse.
One can swap instances and accounts without loosing access to any content.
As for freedom of speech, you have to understand the paradox of tolerance. To maintain freedom of speech you must ensure speech that would advocate for fascism and those who would speak it are suppressed.
And yet you are advocating for each instance to be forced to host whatever speech some arbitrating central authority (ex. the US govt) sees fit for it to host. That’s antithetical to the entire idea of the Fediverse and federalism in general.
Again, the problem isn’t that Nexstar’s speech needs to be controlled, it’s that their power needs to be controlled. If every instance on Lemmy has the same power, then when one permits speech the others don’t like, they are all free to defederate from them. They don’t force the objectionable instance to have certain speech, they just make a democratic effort not to spread it.
you must ensure speech…are suppressed.
And what is the means we use to do that? The govt? What if we find ourselves in the hypothetical situation where the govt is taken over by a fascist, and chooses to use those same means to suppress speech we otherwise want and favor fascist speech? You’re aware of the paradox of tolerance but seem unaware of the free speech paradox.
Marvel chose a Hydra to represent fascism in their comics because that’s what it’s like to fight it: when you cut off a head, 3 more sprout out. Fascism thrives on playing the victim, and the more you attempt to stomp it out with force, the more it wins over proponents.
There’s a reason “democracy is the worst form of govt except for all the others”. Letting the people make bad decisions and learn from them is better than having a dictator arbitrarily decide what’s best. We all want to live in a world where no one thinks fascism is a good idea, but that cannot happen as long as we try to make fascist ideas illegal.
Charlie Kirk’s wife then. My point is, do you see the glaring flaw in your logic that is apparent from about 30s of thought, and is the context in which the first amendment was written in?
You want us (the govt) to force Nexstar (a private entity) to host Kimmel’s (another private entity) speech. But if it were Trump (the govt) forcing CNN (a private entity) to host Tucker Carlson (another private entity) you would be in the comments about how it’s a fascist move. The thing is, it always was.
No, I believe means of communication should not be owned by private entities. While they are, I do not care for the rights of such entities.
You understand that the Fediverse is literally built on the idea of a bunch of private entities each owning their piece of a distributed communication platform, right? You are a private entity.
Are you actually just arguing against freedom of the press and suggesting that only the state should control the means of communication? So only Trump would tell us what the news is? If so, then we simply disagree.
As a distributed platform nobody “owns” the fediverse.
One can swap instances and accounts without loosing access to any content.
As for freedom of speech, you have to understand the paradox of tolerance. To maintain freedom of speech you must ensure speech that would advocate for fascism and those who would speak it are suppressed.
And yet you are advocating for each instance to be forced to host whatever speech some arbitrating central authority (ex. the US govt) sees fit for it to host. That’s antithetical to the entire idea of the Fediverse and federalism in general.
Again, the problem isn’t that Nexstar’s speech needs to be controlled, it’s that their power needs to be controlled. If every instance on Lemmy has the same power, then when one permits speech the others don’t like, they are all free to defederate from them. They don’t force the objectionable instance to have certain speech, they just make a democratic effort not to spread it.
And what is the means we use to do that? The govt? What if we find ourselves in the hypothetical situation where the govt is taken over by a fascist, and chooses to use those same means to suppress speech we otherwise want and favor fascist speech? You’re aware of the paradox of tolerance but seem unaware of the free speech paradox.
Marvel chose a Hydra to represent fascism in their comics because that’s what it’s like to fight it: when you cut off a head, 3 more sprout out. Fascism thrives on playing the victim, and the more you attempt to stomp it out with force, the more it wins over proponents.
There’s a reason “democracy is the worst form of govt except for all the others”. Letting the people make bad decisions and learn from them is better than having a dictator arbitrarily decide what’s best. We all want to live in a world where no one thinks fascism is a good idea, but that cannot happen as long as we try to make fascist ideas illegal.