There seems to be a lot of "there seems to be" talk in the comments. I have yet to see one comment actually calling this move a violation of the first amendment.
What a stupid argument. "Child pornography and obscenity are banned, therefore democracy does not rely on free speech, therefore we don't need free speech at all." Obviously "free speech" comes with the…
Sure, it reduced tensions on reddit, but what about tensions everywhere else? The author doesn't care about how toxic Youtube is, he cares how toxic the US is. Pushing these radicals onto radical websites only further…
> "infringement of our rights." > you don't have the "right" to a spot on their platform Who are you quoting? Those words, or that sentiment, don't appear in the article. If you're quoting a comment then reply to that…
Not a single word in the article hints towards the 1st amendment. I suggest reading the article before acting all high-and-mighty about your "common sense."
There seems to be a lot of "there seems to be" talk in the comments. I have yet to see one comment actually calling this move a violation of the first amendment.
What a stupid argument. "Child pornography and obscenity are banned, therefore democracy does not rely on free speech, therefore we don't need free speech at all." Obviously "free speech" comes with the…
Sure, it reduced tensions on reddit, but what about tensions everywhere else? The author doesn't care about how toxic Youtube is, he cares how toxic the US is. Pushing these radicals onto radical websites only further…
> "infringement of our rights." > you don't have the "right" to a spot on their platform Who are you quoting? Those words, or that sentiment, don't appear in the article. If you're quoting a comment then reply to that…
Not a single word in the article hints towards the 1st amendment. I suggest reading the article before acting all high-and-mighty about your "common sense."