For me, it’s the refusal to demontize them that’s particularly bad. I can understand free speech absolutists (in theory anyways, in practice you’ll find that they VERY rarely actually are and will happily censor people they disagree with like LGBTQIA+ or sex work content), but that doesn’t mean you need to actively be funding them!
This is a really good point. I’m sure they’re using a payment provider, so it might be worth it to go to them directly in the same way people have gone to advertisers to get Fox News hosts fired. The argument could be made that they’re funding domestic terrorism by white nationalists. The payment provider might be much less willing to take on that risk in the name of “free speech”.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
For me, it’s the refusal to demontize them that’s particularly bad. I can understand free speech absolutists (in theory anyways, in practice you’ll find that they VERY rarely actually are and will happily censor people they disagree with like LGBTQIA+ or sex work content), but that doesn’t mean you need to actively be funding them!
This is a really good point. I’m sure they’re using a payment provider, so it might be worth it to go to them directly in the same way people have gone to advertisers to get Fox News hosts fired. The argument could be made that they’re funding domestic terrorism by white nationalists. The payment provider might be much less willing to take on that risk in the name of “free speech”.