>You really don't see anything incongruent about the article's premise and his "conclusion", nor do you see that it's a preposterously philosophically-foolish position to take? He's okay with marrying a women I will not love nor have any emotional stake in. She'll just marry me, we'll live together, and she'll just be a semen vessel? Spare me the willful ignorance.
I see many, many issues with it. Did you not read my post?
>Can we stop nitpicking? These publications often rely on crappy news in aggregate to push a narrative.
Yes, that's true. Again, so do other sources, including many left-leaning ones.
>Watch any of Milo's interviews on video and watch him twist himself in circles. He spends the majority of the time backpedaling on things he said rather than take some affirmative position with evidence to back it up.
Right, because he's mostly going for clickbait and ad revenue and just general attention and self-aggrandizement. But the point is that he has a right to do that, and you have a right to challenge him on it.
>And to the overall censorship point: No one is calling for censorship. Private citizens and companies don't want to deal with Breitbart. Companies like facebook probably just don't have the ability nor the resources to sort through every single thing that starts trending from Breitbart
It seems we agree on most things except this.
First off, as far as I'm aware, Facebook and Twitter have absolutely no plans to block Breitbart. They're only blocking fake news outlets. Outlets that completely fabricate stories and evidence and interviews etc.
Facebook is a private corporation, but like it or not they are a massive monopoly.
No, it's not censorship in the sense of government censorship, but it has a similar effect. We don't have to call it censorship for the horrible effects to become apparent, so I'll stop calling it that.
Facebook has so much reach that you could equate them to a state in many ways. Blocking Breitbart would only solidify conservatives' beliefs that liberal elites are trying to stifle their voice and prevent them from sharing any contrary opinions, and make them feel even more marginalized. It would be a major boon to Trump and his administration. I think that one single action could be the start of a path that makes our country much more divisive than it is now. Zuckerberg was 100% right to be extremely wary about blocking any news sources pre-election.
An advertiser dissociating with Breitbart is one thing, but major social media outlets that effectively act as common carriers should not ban things without a very good reason, like law-infringing material or scams (which fake news outlets generally are).