The large social media platforms have essentially become arms of the government and have demonstrated so countless times. As such, they should be subject to the First Amendment. It’s not that complicated. From Adeline Von Drehle at realclearwire.com:
“We don’t want no censorship, we don’t need no censorship!” Kevin Nathaniel’s voice boomed from the podium in front of the Supreme Court as he, frontman of the Spirit Drummers, led the crowd in a series of sing-songy, reggae-inspired chants. His audience was small but excitable. Some wore Kennedy ’24 beanies and “Ivermectin saves lives” T-shirts. Others showed off signs reading “Fauci is the tyrant the founding fathers warned us about,” and “Freedom of speech includes views you don’t like,” and “Media literacy = censorship,” as they bopped along to the bongo drums.
Inside, the Supreme Court was gearing up to hear the oral arguments of Murthy v. Missouri, in which Missouri and Louisiana, as well as several individuals, claim that federal officials violated the First Amendment in their efforts to combat misinformation on social media. The parties contend that the Biden administration effectively coerced platforms into silencing the voices of American citizens, particularly those on the right who posted about the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The plaintiffs have called it a “sprawling Censorship Enterprise.”
People live with different facts than their neighbors. One reason for this is social media algorithms, which use engagement features such as “like” buttons to feed users more of the content they seem to be interested in. Such a system can result in one person’s feed looking completely alien to another person. That we live in parallel universes is not news, but the dilemma it poses raises crucial questions about the responsibility of social media companies to track what is on their platforms and whether the government even has the right – or the responsibility – to counter what it deems misinformation, and when a line has been crossed into unconstitutional censorship.
What a great name ADV! (h/t)
Kennedy chose a progressive (commie) Shanahan for his vepeezy of the steezy pick as he was only pretending to be a poseur.
Free speech protects ideas that are offensive or out of the ordinary and wouldn’t that be a stale lame destined for extinction world if everyone thought the same and held the same opinions.
This is the utopian dream of the controllers, everything and everyone the same everywhere, right down to food ingredient amounts and portions.
Some intuition or sixth sense just alerted me early on about what a Leviathan mind control hive gaslight honeypot social media is.