Og Rasmus Paludan er der stadig.
Jep, præcis som han og "alt det andet propaganda" bør være.
Men har Faceboo, Youtube, Twitter etc. ikke som private virksomheder "ret" til selv at bestemme deres indhold? Kan folk, der er uenige, ikke blot pakke nellikerne sammen og finde nye græsgange?
Ikke ud fra et monopoliseringsprincip, hvor disse medier i dag - specielt Facebook - er en global medieplatform for publicering af mediers indhold og debattering heraf. Afholder man folk med givne politiske præferencer fra at være tilstede på Facebook, så manipulerer man med hele fundamentet for demokratiets virke.
I sidste uge intensiverede Youtube jagten på deciderede konservative talerør, gennem at stoppe deres indtjeningsmuligheder på mediet.
Som der skrives i denne artikel, er det den konservative kommentator Stephen Crowder, som er "eksemplet".
quillette.com/2019/06/06/against-big-tech-viewpoint-discrimination/Uddrag:
Since YouTube is privately owned, shouldn’t principled free market advocates support the company’s right to purge videos Silicon Valley finds triggering, even if a disproportionate number are created by conservative commentators such as Crowder?
Well, imagine electric companies stood up for progressive values by cutting off power to homes with pro-Trump yard signs. Even staunch supporters of free markets would likely object to these restrictions on expression by privately owned enterprises. When we examine why power companies shouldn’t be able to make service contingent on not violating political sensibilities, we see that analogous arguments should stop social media giants from exiling political dissidents.
If Burger King won’t sell you a hamburger, so what—buy one from McDonald’s. Competition among businesses normally protects you from harm if one refuses you service.
Some markets, however, are characterized by “bigger is better” where size bestows advantage. It’s much cheaper on average to hook up electric power lines to homes if the utility also connects nearly everyone else in town. So, if an electric utility decided to just exclude a few customers, it would be extremely costly for a competing power company to sell energy to those people and the former customers would likely go unpowered. An electric utility that refused service to any homeowner who had a pro-Trump sign in her yard would be unreasonably restricting freedom.
...