[michaelgrosner2]

None, because the government shouldn’t be interfering in speech.

[Dig1t]

The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech.

This one specifically is pretty strong IMO (Biden team telling Twitter to manipulate speech): https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064

Yes yes, someone has already said something about one of them being a dick pic, remove that one, whatever. But do you think they are ALL dick picks? This email is one out of many.

[sanderjd]

The point being made by the commenter you replied to, which I think you missed, is that if the government passed a law preventing one private entity (a political campaign) from emailing another private entity (a business), that would be government interference in speech.

[michaelgrosner2]

> This one specifically is pretty strong IMO

That was from October 2020. Biden was not in government then.

[dbsights]

Conspiring to suppress true information to influence an election seems worse.

[ThatPlayer]

But that is still within the company's First Amendment right. This was settled when the Supreme Court ruled that political donations are a company's First Amendment right. So now companies are allowed to have a direct influence on elections.

[code_witch_sam]

what if you use the report button to do the same, and succeed? have you influenced the election? perhaps marginally. your tweets do the same.

[michaelgrosner2]

Step back and think how your position is anti-free speech

[dbsights]

I'm in favour of free speech, without censorship from government or private entities. Which is why I think censoring the laptop story was wrong.

So tell me, how is that anti free speech?

[RavingGoat]

How are non-consensual dick pics free speech?

[tomrod]

> The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech.

Nah. The point of this is right-wing propaganda.