There the govt builds the controls. Here Twitter, YouTube and Facebook do. No big difference in my book. In terms of outcomes, only clowns get propped up either way.
There is no alternative to Google, Amazon, Youtube, etc. You have tiny, inferior competitors that don't even come close to 10% of the monopolist's market share. Google works very hard to trap you in their ecosystem. Once you're there, escape is almost impossible.
You're conflating legal restriction on individual behavior with market/individual-preference constraints.
"Life" in general is constrained. We are not trying to get rid of limited options (every choise is between limited options), we're trying to limit totalitarian control over individuals.
That is, behaviour which is artificially constrained by imprisonment, punishment and death for the sake of preserving tyrannical power structures.
And the end result are tyrannical power structures that de facto exert totalitarian control. There is very little difference between government-enforced restrictions and those created by global capitalism and its monopolies.
It doesn't matter to me if my rights are restricted by legal means or by corporate hegemonies, in fact the mechanisms in play are so complex nobody can really be sure anymore.
No no, people can be very very very sure. The 20th C. tried both of those experiments and in the totalitarian system 10s of millions -- at least -- died.
Having your choices restricted by social cooperation and negotiation (in a market places) is NOT the same as having them restricted by a bully with a military.
This false equivalence is a defense of genocide whether you are willing to own up to that or not.
I sincerely ask the question: Is it possible to evaluate whether freedom has expanded since 1995? It seems like they controlled much, much more when not everyone had their Youtube channel. Now it’s possible to do your own research on, for example, real M/F wage difference, or get informed about Trump news despite MSM. Not ideal, but better than the 90’s.
