Pre-2016 I would have agreed. Today the tech industry DOES NOT in any way have a "laissez faire view on free speech" the Tech Industry in general has a one sided political bias that is very clear, and the goal to suppress any speech not aligned with that political bias for the purposes of influencing elections
I mean really imagine that.
If the tech industry wanted to suppress a particular presidential candidate, not only with that candidate have no account on any social platform, but links to their websites or to news articles that sentiment analysis decides are pro that candidate would be blocked by search engines, and videos of that candidate or pro that candidate would be flagged and removed.
Maybe there isn't a blatant set of acts that is "biased" on tech platforms that you could point to and say "look see, bias!". Perhaps it is just systemic bias and there is structural suppression of certain viewpoints on the aggregate level.
Infact one of the best things the opposition should be doing is promoting other platforms, if high profile political candidates would abandon mainstream platforms and signal boost alternatives (like the new comer Parler) then it would reduce the power of the platforms
No the platforms want the HIGH PROFILE people, then they suppress the supporters of those high profile people, that is how the game is played
That is how the population is influences, they get the High Profile people to speak on the platform, then only allow dissenters to respond that gives the observing public the idea that the majority disagrees triggering a band wagon effect
To put this to the point which way do you think the bias leans?
The debate comes into place because the Tech companies will still ban people for clear rules violations even though they are on the "correct" side, direct calls for violence as an example
But the even the rules themselves on most of these platforms show a political worldview toward one side.
This is also influenced by the massive shift in the overton window over the last 4 years, so much so that many people on one political side seem to have whiplash.
So I do not doubt you will find people that will disagree with what way the bias leans, however when you have documented and video evidence of the bias in one direction then the debate is much less valid
* greed: there's buckets of money to be made during election season selling voter info and ads to campaigns
* hubris: they never thought she'd lose, she was a terrible candidate (just like Biden this time!)
Wow, "many many?" Like not one, not even many, but many squared by even more many? That's a lot.
And each of them of was filmed and recorded individually making the same statement too. That's shocking.
I don't suppose you could point us to the mountain of video and audio evidence implied by this comment, could you?
The President of America believes that the tech community suppresses him personally.
I mean, sure, you could say “both are in their own ridiculous echo chambers”, but the walls of both those echo chambers were built by the tech industry.
Only about 1% of tech workers are employed by companies headquartered in Silicon Valley, let alone San Francisco. The absolute vast majority of technology employment is at companies that don't have a direct technology product. Software engineers working at traditional businesses like banks and retailers far overwhelm the employees at FAANG and startup type companies.
You're buying into an echo chamber concept because you don't realize the extent of the universe you're characterizing. You're mistaking the echo chamber for the reality, kind of how people mistake what people say on twitter for what people actually think.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...
@jack says one thing in interviews but does another.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter...
What types get a pass on speech and what types get deplatformed?
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/24/carpe-donktum...