On the one hand they say platforms may exercise “their” free speech by moderating posts or banning people and that’s okay because it’s a private co. and not obliged to be platform for everyone.
Then on the other hand a different company also exercises its free speech (under their own argument) by not moderating posts and now that’s bad because some speech should be moderated and they disagree with those voices.
So like basically they’re for corporate free speech when they agree with the controls but are against it when they disagree with the results.
Just say it. We only want to allow our approved views — we don’t want free speech.
And not only that but they protest free speech but totally don’t walk out when they unscrupulously slurp up data on everyone.
I think it's morally reprehensible and therefore support Facebook's employees movement to work to change Facebook's actions.
These are not contradictory views.
If we’re talking about the president’s post, look, there are people on the other side who also post things more incendiary are those reprehensible too? Or is it because we disagree with the poster?
I don’t see how you square FB having that right but simultaneously disagreeing with what happens when they exercise that right.
I don't think people should wear socks with sandals, and I will not hesitate to tell them that should I see it. I'll still be the first protesting if the government starts making them take off their socks.
They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical?
> I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.
Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people.
You're clearly having a normal one.
of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?