Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1351943)	4/1/2022 12:42:27 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577083

and it's "legal" for the WH to call for censorship by corporations and have those same corporations respond in kind?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1351943)	4/1/2022 2:28:11 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Taro Respond to of 1577083

Hey, I get it. The truth is the First Amendment is there to protect the media, not the democracy. So, we have to live with that for sure. I have tried to think of ways we might be able to "encourage" the media to behave like I want them to. I was thinking a five or ten year suspension of "The Fourth Estate" privilege might do it. You know, sort of re-train them on how NYT can cover stories without actually CONSPIRING with WaPo to withhold facts, then give them a probation period. While I'm on it, though, I feel I should point out that Mark Zuckerberg dumping $426 million into swing states -- there is nothing to see there. And the weaponization of Covid to make fast, under-the-table changes to the election laws in the swing states was perfectly acceptable. They were protecting us from Covid, even if it did corrupt the hell out of the vote. We'd rather have people alive than a fair election, so it had to be done. All in all, there is little room for criticizing any of it.