Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 481871908590059540
You won't have the personal liberty if an invading country takes over
Calvin the communist
Temporary breaks if liberty in order to save the nation are at times necessary
In*
Under the vast majority of events personal liberty should trump security, but under the threat of destruction from an invasion? Survival will be paramount. The trenches is hardly a place for Democracy .
Donald Trump
Lives rent free in your head?
No u
Lol
Personal liberty should only be violated if there is a good reason to, not because the governments just claims it will make people safer.
Personal liberty should not exist
Because thats how it works in the EU
@Obungus definitely. I expect a damn good reason when it happens.
And for it to be an infrequent event.
The EU is gay
National security above all means
Having power feels so good
depends on the situation but it's best to err on the side of personal liberty
Ideally, the people are the nation. National security is directed and controlled by the people.
@everyone Daily Question 🔖
How should private companies that wrongfully censor political opponents be punished? Should they even be punished at all? When is corporate censorship okay, and is it something legislation can address?
homo
Private companies should be allowed t do as they please as long as they do not falsely advertise that they are unbiased
What’s to stop them from advertising they are unbiased but having a bias anyways?
Government fines
And how would one report this to the government and what essentially decides if a company has a bias or not.
Twitter now has huge biases against the right but none against anti-white racists.
Government does nothing because it’s a private entity.
Make large internet sites and apps legal public areas
Individualism is a cancer, with that said i oppose any government mandates to enforce anti-individualism. People should organize themselves into hierarchies, and it should be voluntary.
The bundle is stronger than the stick, etc
Mb, was reading yesterdays q and thought it was for today
Honestly though, part of me sees corporate censorship as an opportunity for conservatives to launch alternative media sources, and some have already been launched
But in do think designating certain ones as public sphere could work, as long as the criteria for becoming one was pretty strict
I was under the impression that private businesses were able to censor whatever they deem acceptable
It usually states it in their ToS
They are but when they become a form of public platform for everyone it’s less *social* and more media.
Private companies are able to censor at will, until they become utilities (like electricity) or market themselves as social platforms, then they're under a grey area.
I think I agree with how it's done atm, but I don't agree with how damn slow authority has been to act.
Depends if they're a monopoly as well
There's that one case where the company owned 80% of the town and was told they had to respect the bill of rights