• FMT99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It’s false equivalence though, although with the election of shadow president Musk it’s getting a bit more hazy.

    Even so, one is an (admittedly hugely influential) private company and the other is the actual single-party government dictating what speech is allowed.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      one is an (admittedly hugely influential) private company and the other is the actual single-party government

      The US has been governed by public-private partnerships for centuries. Trying to draw a line between the industry administrators that get promoted into every crevice of public sector bureaucracy and the elected politicians who depart office to serve as lobbyists and board members of private firms is a fool’s errand.

      Do we celebrate Chris Dodd the Senator and denounce Chris Dodd the chairman of and chief lobbyist for the MPAA? Do we applaud Hank Paulson the Treasury Secretary and denounce Hank Paulson the CEO of Goldman Sachs?

      Americans seem to have no trouble drawing a straight line between Singapore-incorporated ByteDance and the Chinese Communist Party. Why can’t they see the connection between Howard Lutnick or Linda McMahon or Betsy DeVos or Elaine Chao and the businesses they own and operate?

      • FMT99@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Hey you’ll get no argument from me. I’m on Lemmy for a reason. But it’s still not the same as just straight up “the government decides what is thoughtcrime”