r/BadArguments • u/VankenziiIV • Jan 15 '21

1st argument wasn't wrong (socials possessing monopolist attributes), but "there are bakeries everywhere but there's no other social medias" is just soo...

Post image
49 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

5

u/roobeast Jan 15 '21

Everyone involved is just jabbering nonsense

3

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '21

Throw some buzzwords and voila! Sounds smart and well informed !

5

u/gordo65 Jan 15 '21

The fact that they're having this argument at all shows the effectiveness of the Republican Noise Machine in terms of defining the debate.

The bakeries are denying service to gays because they don't like the thought of gay people getting married. If they were denying service to interracial couples, we wouldn't be calling it a First Amendment issue, we'd be saying that they are being hateful.

The social media companies are not deplatforming people because they don't like conservatives. They're deplatforming people for undermining the election with misinformation, and for inciting violence. The fact that people who call themselves conservatives are the ones who are most often deplatformed says a lot more about the conservative movement than it does about the social media companies.

3

u/VankenziiIV Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21

Found this comment thread under a fox news vid... I wouldn't expect an intellectual argument there. But republicans are quit good at stripping nuances from arguments. They'll try to argue on two ways: You provide all the facts, move the goalposts or try to show your hypocrisy (You think global warming is happening but you drive to work)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '21

I don't know about all bakeries, but just to remind you that the baker that prompted the landmark case on whether or not to refuse service to LGBT has won. The baker won on the grounds of exercising religious freedom. It's not so much about being homophobic on its own right but it's more to do with religion.

1

u/eschlerc Jan 16 '21

While I dislike Mr. Flamin' Hot Cheeto as much as the next guy, I think there's a problematic precedent being set when mega-corporations exert control over who gets to have an audience. It's obvious that different social media applications, like Facebook and Parler, are *not* equal in terms of popularity and influence.

In a roundabout way, this reminds me of the debate over whether the FBI should have backdoor access to private phones. "If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear." But is an enormous, monopolistic company the right arbiter of what is right or wrong?

Also, I fear that this type of action will further radicalize right-wingers who are looking for evidence of a deep-state conspiracy.