Biden's Ministry of Truth: Starting in 2020, DHS began meeting with Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and more monthly to coordinate 'content moderation' efforts

[antaeus]

It’s barely even an analogy given the federal government is conducting “an expansive effort to influence tech platforms” and “broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous.” The argument about switching to some social media company where this isn’t the case directly applies to leaving the US for a country that doesn’t do these things. Or are you suggesting that simply canceling your internet service so as to avoid companies like Microsoft wouldn’t be a costly decision? Have you tried getting just about any white collar job without a LinkedIn profile within the last five years? Participated in online gaming without Discord?

Putting aside the fact The Intercept is a left wing, mainstream publication, no one has presented anything to refute the OP or linked articles.

From the OP:

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse…. The inherently subjective nature of what constitutes disinformation provides a broad opening for DHS officials to make politically motivated determinations about what constitutes dangerous speech.”

“Love it or leave it” isn’t a counterargument, it’s a deflection.

This entire tangent is a strawman given we’re discussing comprensive censorship efforts by the federal government directed at platforms like “Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media [which] met on a monthly basis with the FBI, CISA, and other government representatives.” If TWC wasn’t included, it’s probably because not even the Feds can reach its owner.

TWC's inclusion is an analogy yo. It's the red car. I have a white collar job, and no LinkedIn. I got my job through Instagram.

Either way, how is it a straw man to point out that the accusation of a conspiracy isn't one? It's like making a straw man in a field of straw men. Has Truth Social been forced to do anything because of the conversation between Facebook and Govt? If we get to the point whereby Truth Social is forced to comply with rules established by Govt in partnership with the select social media sites you don't like, then we can revisit this conversation, and I'll probably jump into your camp and rail against the system. From what I can see at this point, we see some popular private sector social media platforms working with some elements of government to come up with solutions for issues that have been identified on those platforms.

In reality, Truth Social is exactly love it or leave it. Trump didn't like the way that the platforms he used were pressuring him, so in a classic illustration of free market doing what it should, he started his own platform that functions in line with his goals.

Until we can say that all social media platforms are being forced to comply with rules, and there isn't room for new startups to challenge these rules, love it or leave it isn't a deflection, it's the only relevant argument.

[Lord Thesaurian]

TWC's inclusion is an analogy yo. It's the red car. I have a white collar job, and no LinkedIn. I got my job through Instagram.

So Facebook then. Even worse.

Either way, how is it a straw man to point out that the accusation of a conspiracy isn't one? It's like making a straw man in a field of straw men. Has Truth Social been forced to do anything because of the conversation between Facebook and Govt? If we get to the point whereby Truth Social is forced to comply with rules established by Govt in partnership with the select social media sites you don't like, then we can revisit this conversation, and I'll probably jump into your camp and rail against the system. From what I can see at this point, we see some popular private sector social media platforms working with some elements of government to come up with solutions for issues that have been identified on those platforms.

In reality, Truth Social is exactly love it or leave it. Trump didn't like the way that the platforms he used were pressuring him, so in a classic illustration of free market doing what it should, he started his own platform that functions in line with his goals.

Until we can say that all social media platforms are being forced to comply with rules, and there isn't room for new startups to challenge these rules, love it or leave it isn't a deflection, it's the only relevant argument.

Even without addressing your shifting goalposts, and conceding your insistence that people can technically “just” not use Microsoft, it’s been established private platforms are being pressured to comply as part of a comprehensive campaign by the federal government. Until you address that, “love it or leave it” is a deflection.

[antaeus]

So Facebook then. Even worse.

Even without addressing your shifting goalposts, and conceding your insistence that people can technically “just” not use Microsoft, it’s been established private platforms are being pressured to comply as part of a comprehensive campaign by the federal government. Until you address that, “love it or leave it” is a deflection.

If you don't address moving goalposts, you're going to end standing by yourself in the middle of a field with no goals. Yes, I work on a Mac. I also have a Parler account.