Note that Greenwald never attempts to actually analyze the extent to which these sites might be culpable for spreading misinformation. Nor does he attempt to distinguish said analysis from what happens in other countries.

What if we took this to the logical extreme? What if there was a Nazi TV station that repeatedly aired false stories about how Jews are collaborating to take over the world or whatever? Would Greenwald (or you) oppose House Democrats sending a letter to companies asking why they allow this station on their packages?

If you agree that the actions of the Democrats would be fair in the previous example, then you agree that their actions can be justified depending on the extent of harm being done. The question at that point would be where the line is. Personally, I'm not comfortable with how Democrats are approaching this issue, but it's nowhere near being authoritarian or completely unreasonable.

It's ironic to me that Greenwald positions himself as being super reasonable in criticizing media exaggerations of issues, yet he has no problem with calling Democrats authoritarian on a wide scale and worse than Trump on free speech. Meanwhile Trump argued that burning the flag should be illegal, came out against protests generally (tear gassed a crowd of innocent people for a photo op), told a private company to fire an employee over usage of 1A rights, wants to revoke section 230, repeatedly sued people in an attempt to block anti-Trump books from releasing, wants to open up libel laws, sued CNN for publishing a poll he didn't like, and called the press the "enemy of the people," inspiring his supporters to vilify the press to the extent of supporting political violence against them. I would argue that all of these things are far more explicitly anti free speech and press than anything Democrats have done. You would have to be willfully ignorant to argue otherwise.

section 230 should be revoked repealed rescinded and scotched

"Supporting political violence against the press?" You're gonna have to back that up with something!

Suing CNN over a poll or mean tweeting that they are "fake news" (yada yada) is LEAGUES away from trying to pressure cable providers from axing cable stations that do not conform to the left's political narrative.

Greenwald's point is sound I believe. Imagine the outcry if Trump had taken tangible steps to shut down MSNBC or CNN? No such tangible steps were taken. Mean tweets do not count.

Parler is a small fish compared to Fox News, but the Parler precedent has been set. The writers of the 1st amendment couldn't begin to imagine this era of technology, but when you are able to pressure in tandem app providers (google play store and apple app store) and Amazon's Web Hosting service (which hosts something like 70% of websites) you are in a dangerous grey area where you can effectively control public speech but still claim "twitter is a private company, if you don't like it make your own!" (even though Parler's example shows that the powers that be aren't actually going to willingly let you create your own). As an aside, I am sure you've seen the articles proving that Facebook and not Parler was the most widely used social media network to coordinate the capital riots.

In any case, what these two House Dems are doing is somewhat similar to the pressure that was applied to app stores and web hosting services vis a vis parler. Essentially, it's mob rule. What they are hoping is that thousands of easily offended, easily-****** off twitter social justice Karens-to-be will flame Dish and COMCAST and all these other cable providers with threats and bad pr pressuring them to remove all "offending" content. It's a tried and true strategy. American colonists used such mobs to fight and force the British govt to rescind the Stamp Act in 1765. The mob is still active, it's just gone digital.

You’re so boring.

"Supporting political violence against the press?" You're gonna have to back that up with something!

Have you seen the videos that the press took on Jan 6 of Trump supporters threatening their lives?

Suing CNN over a poll or mean tweeting that they are "fake news" (yada yada) is LEAGUES away from trying to pressure cable providers from axing cable stations that do not conform to the left's political narrative.

I would say that taking actual legal action against CNN and telling your millions of supporters that they are the enemies of the people is far more damaging than sending a letter, and regardless, I notice that you took the two weakest examples I gave. The call to make flag burning illegal, for example, is a direct violation of our first amendment rights.

Trump actually did want to take tangible steps to shut these companies down, if "opening up libel laws" "revoking section 230" and "taking legal action against the companies" count.

On the Parler point, first, Parler bans leftists. It's not a free speech haven. You can openly support Trump on Twitter. You can't openly support Biden on Parler.

Secondly, I would need to see evidence as to how the Democrats were involved in Parler being revoked by apple. I would point out that tech companies can bully Congress if they wanted to. This weak-*** crap by Democrats will only succeed if the companies were already going to take whatever action anyway.

If Democrats tell their supporters to stop using companies that host Fox News, and then the companies comply, I'm 100% for that. That's using the market power to your advantage. I'm 100% for boycotts. If Democrats tell companies that they will take whatever action legally if they don't stop hosting Fox News, I'm less for that.

Just the same, I support the right of the Republican party to come out against Disney+ after they fired Gina Carano. If Republicans decide to mass boycott Disney, that is their right.

By the way, it's extremely vague as to what leverage the Democrats actually have over the companies. It seems to me like they're just inquiring about this, and people like you are flipping the **** out expecting some actual action to take place.

Let's stop with the hyperbole. From what I understand of Greenwald's article, here's what Democrats are actually doing:
1. Hosting a hearing
2. Two Democrats sent a letter to cable companies.

Am I missing anything? So much of your hysteria seems to be built off of what *might* happen?

Posted by tangplay on 2/25/2021 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Let's stop with the hyperbole. From what I understand of Greenwald's article, here's what Democrats are actually doing:
1. Hosting a hearing
2. Two Democrats sent a letter to cable companies.

Am I missing anything? So much of your hysteria seems to be built off of what *might* happen?

There certainly was no hysteria over what *might* happen because of Trump's policies these past 4 years right?

Posted by Uofa2 on 2/25/2021 10:32:00 AM (view original):
You’re so boring.

Another truly substantive response! What would these forums do without your wise insight UOFA? State schools FTW!

section 230 should be revoked repealed rescinded and sunk

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 2/25/2021 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/25/2021 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Let's stop with the hyperbole. From what I understand of Greenwald's article, here's what Democrats are actually doing:
1. Hosting a hearing
2. Two Democrats sent a letter to cable companies.

Am I missing anything? So much of your hysteria seems to be built off of what *might* happen?

There certainly was no hysteria over what *might* happen because of Trump's policies these past 4 years right?

Speculating over the potential impact of policies is different than speculating over future actions taken by policymakers.

This would be like reading about the Muslim ban and speculating that Trump was going to do concentration camps for Muslims.

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 2/25/2021 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 2/25/2021 10:32:00 AM (view original):
You’re so boring.

Another truly substantive response! What would these forums do without your wise insight UOFA? State schools FTW!

same thing they'd do without your "wise" insight.

wylie wants a drum roll.

Posted by tangplay on 2/25/2021 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 2/25/2021 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/25/2021 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Let's stop with the hyperbole. From what I understand of Greenwald's article, here's what Democrats are actually doing:
1. Hosting a hearing
2. Two Democrats sent a letter to cable companies.

Am I missing anything? So much of your hysteria seems to be built off of what *might* happen?

There certainly was no hysteria over what *might* happen because of Trump's policies these past 4 years right?

Speculating over the potential impact of policies is different than speculating over future actions taken by policymakers.

This would be like reading about the Muslim ban and speculating that Trump was going to do concentration camps for Muslims.

Too bad by even describing that policy as a "Muslim ban" you have already bought into the propaganda stating that it was so. Actually, it had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with countries that were deemed a threat due to terrorist activity etc. A Muslim from Morocco would have had no problem coming to America. Clearly, if it was a "Muslim ban" it was the worst one ever. Try again.

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 2/25/2021 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/25/2021 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 2/25/2021 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/25/2021 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Let's stop with the hyperbole. From what I understand of Greenwald's article, here's what Democrats are actually doing:
1. Hosting a hearing
2. Two Democrats sent a letter to cable companies.

Am I missing anything? So much of your hysteria seems to be built off of what *might* happen?

There certainly was no hysteria over what *might* happen because of Trump's policies these past 4 years right?

Speculating over the potential impact of policies is different than speculating over future actions taken by policymakers.

This would be like reading about the Muslim ban and speculating that Trump was going to do concentration camps for Muslims.

Too bad by even describing that policy as a "Muslim ban" you have already bought into the propaganda stating that it was so. Actually, it had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with countries that were deemed a threat due to terrorist activity etc. A Muslim from Morocco would have had no problem coming to America. Clearly, if it was a "Muslim ban" it was the worst one ever. Try again.

Oh, ****! You really got me.

I'm sure that you also did the research and remembered the numerous times when Trump very specifically called for a Muslim ban, just a ban on Muslims. Or when he tried to propose the first version of the ban but it got rejected because what Trump actually wanted to do was unconstitutional. Or when Trump specifically went to Giuliani and asked him how to make a Muslim ban legal.

So yes, the eventual executive order wasn't a Muslim ban, because it legally can't be.

What an own!

Also, great job dodging the point. Again, you're freaking the **** out over a hearing and a letter from two Democrats, congrats on the hysteria