5 ms·
"Free speech exists as a protection from government censorship" So what happens when the line between government and corporation is blurred? The common justif
by foiboitoi 11y ago
"Free speech exists as a protection from government censorship"
So what happens when the line between government and
corporation is blurred? The common justification why that
corporations aren't beholden to free speech is that you can
just choose another corporation to spend your time/money on.
What if you can't choose? What if it's prohibitively
expensive to just setup an alternative (perhaps due to
regulatory capture)?
What if there's no competition because corporations have
subtly merged with government?
Maybe it's simply just not right anymore to assume that if
it's a private organisation that they're exempt from
societal/governmental principals.
- bduerst 11y ago>Slippery slope Github isn't even remotely "blurred" with a government organization. This is some pretty out-there FUD.
- foiboitoi 11y agoSlippery slope doesn't have anything to do with this. My point was that societal standards & expectation shouldn't end with the government. Yes it's not required, but that's irrelevant. People are paying for these corporations through tax breaks, subsidies & other governmental projects (Tesla for example).
- PopeOfNope 11y agoI think the fundamental misunderstanding we're having here is that people on the left side of the political spectrum believe the solution to all answers is more government control. The idea that the government isn't the beginning and ending of social control is outside of their realm of understanding.
- bduerst 11y agoIt is a slippery slope because you're trying to extrapolate public policy onto private property. If you're upset with the tax breaks and subsidies, then elect someone who will deal with them. That and your arbitrary expectations doesn't give you entitlement to someone else's private property.