> it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. The whole point of the constitution is to put a limit on the law. The government cannot pass a law forbidding a certain kind of speech as it…
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. They take the banning of Trump and conclude that there needs to be transparency in advertising? I mean, I agree, but it's certainly a weird article. I'm not sure if…
Probably the one by the Mozilla CEO, "We need more than deplatforming"[1] 1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
33% is, by definition, a minority.
> it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. The whole point of the constitution is to put a limit on the law. The government cannot pass a law forbidding a certain kind of speech as it…
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. They take the banning of Trump and conclude that there needs to be transparency in advertising? I mean, I agree, but it's certainly a weird article. I'm not sure if…
Probably the one by the Mozilla CEO, "We need more than deplatforming"[1] 1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
33% is, by definition, a minority.