No, this isn't a trial. It's OK to raise ideas up for others' consideration. The absence of obvious evidence doesn't mean the thing itself isn't happening.
There is also a big difference between one person's voice on a platform, and a decision-maker of the platform who is creating policy/process for filtering those voices.
It's not my job to disprove other's statement. It's their job to prove their statements when they make assertions. This is common argument religious zealots make. You can't disprove god, therefore god exists. It's silly at best.
I have yet to see any proof or evidence that 'elites' are engaged in such activities.
Bitching about 'the elites' is garbage. It is a contentless description unless you identify who you're bitching about, primarily used as a way to get others to agree with you by substituting their own conception of 'elitists'.
If you blame 'elites' with no further clarification for something, I'm going to assume you're pushing a dishonest agenda. If you were being honest, you'd identify your scary shadowy actors.
>This has nothing to do with 1A. Businesses have the right to refuse service if you're being too loud in their establishment. Sorry, not sorry.
If the purpose of 1a is to foster a society where speech is democratic, then it does, because corporations have largely replaced governments as the primary arbiters of information. So philosophically, the idea behind it is very relevant.
The kind of power that governments abused, leading to 1a, is in some ways analogous to corporate power today. Whether that analogy is valid is the debate, right?
I'm not from the US, but I wonder - just like how liberalism radically reimagined governance and the role of the commons in their relationship to the state, I wonder how a revolution this century could radically reimagine the digital commons.
What will seem like obvious, basic digital rights, 100 years from now, that are completely unimaginable to my digitally medieval brain, like a preliberal medieval peasant?
Sure, but it’s a different dystopia than Gibson or Dick our Paul Verhoucen (sp?) predicted.
They reflect common, primal human fears and are not indicative of insight. Just as my fear of heights does not provide wisdom against constructing/operating tall things - whether it be buildings, pyramids, or airplane flights.
The elites, like any other group, have a culture and a worldview shaped by it. They believe similar things, read similar news sources, have similar incentives and goals, etc.
