Political rants

@momoichi to reply to your trump being more racist than biden that is completely false. Trump isnt anymore inherently racist than biden was. His son alone said the N word on multiple occasions and has yet to be called out for it. He himself has said many things that are racist such as "poor kids can be just as smart as white kids" white kids are also poor. Even if the way he said it was twisted in a way to make it seem racist it is still racist for the simple fact even white kids are poor. So poor kids who are white can be just as smart as themselves. You cant tell me it doesnt look bad from every angle. Also "if you have a hard time wondering if you should vote for me then you aint black". Meanwhile the chad trump "look at him, look at my African American isnt he the greatest?"

People love to call trump racist but is he actually racist? You hear nothing but praises from his staff working at the hotels he owns. Some black, some hispanic. Trump was never an issue until he ran for president. Imma say it now. Trump literally invited kanye into the white house to speak one on one. How is the dude racist?

Bruh youtube deleted a trump speech and froze the account that posted it. We really need to sign a new law agsint shit like this. There should be no reason people are being deplatformed if they arent calling for violence or commiting any crimes.

The government can sign laws to limit youtube censorship. For that matter, the government can sign any laws. But that doesn't mean those laws would be constitutional. The government signing laws that forbade companies to not ban people would be unconstitutional. The government cannot compel, force, pressure any speech onto any private entity. The government telling private entities what speech they can or cannot ban goes against the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Yes, whether you like it or not. Private companies have freedom of speech as well. Think about it. You want the government to censor private entities' freedom of speech. Which is a contradiction. Stopping private entities freedom of speech to support freedom of speech. Let me give you this following example: Colin Kaepernick kneeled for the national anthem. The act of kneeling was a silent protest that did not call for violence or commit any crimes. Under your own made up logic for free speech policy. "There should be no reason people are being deplatformed if they arent calling for violence or commiting any crimes." But the NFL fired Colin Kaepernick. The NFL deplatformed Colin Kapernick. I'm sure your against this flagrant deplatforming for non violent action, right Pandus? If you got your way Pandus. If a company disagrees with someone's ideology. Then the NFL or any other company for that matter would not be able to ban anyone from their private property. Sorry to burst your bubble. But just as Colin Kaepernick has every right to express his free speech through kneeling. The NFL as a private company, also has freedom of speech. By the NFL firing Colin Kaepernick. The NFL expressed their freedom of speech through their so called patriotic support to the nation. The NFL has every right to protect its financial interest and exert their own freedom of speech. That is how freedom speech should work between individuals and companies. If you don't like what a company does. Then simply don't support them. The government should not meddle with freedom of speech for any private entities. Don't get me wrong. I also do not like Youtube, Twitter and Twitch censorship policies. I think they are retarted. However, this is not communist China where the government goes in tells websites what they can and cannot unban. In a free capitalist society. The government should not tell individuals or private companies what they can and cannot say, ban or unban. I'll rather let the free market decide. I recommend you watch this short video of a lawyer. One who knows way more than me on matters of the law. See how freedom of speech works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXBFZFmEzJs&ab_channel=LegalEagle

Thats not what i mean, because these companies dont ACT as a private entity. They are acting as a public entity. In the case where one country banned twitter and they argued it was censoring their speech and it was essential they have twitter. That would mean it is a public entity and requires people to be allowed to use it. That goes against being private and allowing them to ban whoever without government intervention. So if they sign a law forcing these private entities to admit they are a public outlet then they can infact operate however they want which includes stopping them from banning people for speech. Or we can outright just ban twitter/youtube from the US. That is good too.

i love legal eagle. But the issue is that things like twitter and facebook consider thethen selves a public entity, and a public platform. That means anyone should be allowed to post, and shouldnt be silenced. Now.. add in filters and stuff so people who are offended dont have to see it? Sure... but you cant call yourself a public entity but have the rights and privileges of a private one

NFL is an entertainment industry, not a public platform for giving and recieving information. I personally dont think he should have been fired unless he was getting toxic. But it wasnt just that he was fired. He also wasnt picked up by anyone... which is a shame. Gina Carano situation (or is Gina a Collin situation) Personally, i believe personal politics shouldnt be a reason to fire anyone...

Define a public entity. These are private corporations that have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. These are not owned by the people. A public entity is a state park, a school, the DMV etc. A public entity is owned by the people for the people. The government stating that a corporation is public is tantamount to nationalizing an industry. No different than when Cuba and China nationalized private entities. Media companies are private entities whose ultimate goal is to turn a profit. Social media companies are not public entities owned by the state. These are not non profit public schools. It is gullible and naïve to think that private entities should protect what you see as free speech. Private entities are designed to turn a profit. Nothing more and nothing less.