Someone has to pay for the speech. On Twitter, advertisers pay for speech. As such, there is not only every reason to fail to protect ad-unfriendly speech, it's actively profitable to ban it. If no possible advertiser would want to print ads next to your tweet, then it's a pure drain on the platform and every moderator knows this.
An ad-funded platform is a way to promote advertising speech. Naturally advertisers have a very low demand for truth on the best of days.
Why should advertisers have to pay for your speech, anyway? Ad-funded = communist. Pay for your own, deadbeat.
I assume the ADL is simply an arm of the CIA. Advertisers listen to it because they know that if they don't, the big guns will come out. All they'll do is piss it off and get the Gab treatment.
Have to suppress speech using a ""private"" entity to avoid 1st-a lawsuits. Your communism constitution in action. Quis custodiet? Who decides what's private and what isn't? Hey look it's not the supremes, oops.
No comments:
Post a Comment