10th January 2021
My next TOI blog article: Time for Big Tech to respect liberty or be forced to do so
I sent my article to the Times of India many hours before the massive communist purge that took place yesterday. But what I’ve said in this article is now even more important:
I’ve already discussed the common counter-arguments in this article. But there are some essential ones that I would like to note here:
a) People establish their presence on the understanding that they can speak their mind. The idea that particular views can be censored. This is a consumer contract issue.
b) The broadest principle is that there can be no contract to slavery. One can’t get an agreement from someone to be a slave on one’s private property.
A speech service must allow all opinions unless a court intervenes.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS – SEE FULL THREAD
This is how we humans think. We believe – indeed, we KNOW – that ONLY the side that has something to hide uses censorship and bans.
— 🙂Sanjeev Sabhlok, Pope @Church of Reason& Liberty (@sabhlok) January 9, 2021
Since when did Big Tech get the legal right to decide that some content is inflammatory (e.g. Trump asking people to go home in peace)? Are they part of the law & order machine?
They ought to at least get legal & police experts to determine whether something is inflammatory.
And these legal and police experts ought to provide a speaking order, i.e. a direction to Facebook/Twitter (to be published) that contains justifications that Trump could then appeal in court.
THIS DICTATORSHIP OF UNELECTED BIG TECH WON’T GO WELL WITH THE PEOPLE.
— CNN (@CNN) August 18, 2018