[salawat]

Change freedom of speech to "freedom to realistically effect change", and you'll ultimately end up at the point everyone is dancing around, but no one is willing to say out loud.

Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about.

You can't buy a printing press without... Money. You can't buy a computer without... Money You can't get an internet connection without... Money.

You can't just pass this off as cryptobros being cryptobros.

Canada is basically saying, no one shall be serviced whose capital is getting allocated to "this".

And that is dangerous, especially when done unilaterally by the executive government. Call me an overly stiff contrarian if you want, but a spade is a spade, whether you want to call it something else. That people are busy playing these semantic games should be reason for pause.

[malermeister]

What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say.

Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyone has a say, not just the Peter Thiels that can buy printing presses.

[jevoten]

But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.

[8note]

Properly, the government needs to fund the publication of speech by every citizen, so anyone can spend as much as Peter Thiel can

[salawat]

Square one. What the government giveth, it can take away. See Canada.

[salawat]

Info propagation isn't free. Even at the atomic unit, you and someone to listen to you, requires the organization of participants to scale beyond triviality. Realistically, within the societal framework we operate in, there isn't really feasible decoupling of funds from access to anplification. You're not safe relying on government subsidy, because, well, square one.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about.

Nobody has freedom to be heard. "Freedom to be heard" equals "freedom to force others to listen (or at least to hear)". I deny that anyone legitimately has that freedom.

[salawat]

The Court, the Executive, and anyone sufficiently close to tweak their or, or with a big enough pocket book to have a lobbyist's ear beg to differ. Hence, the concern whenever it appears Governments are flexing it a bit brazenly.