And on the brain... Worms!

Regardless, the lawyers win.

"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers"

Get em wormy

Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly

Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.

If I say "people should have a right to healthcare", and you respond "people do not have a legal right to healthcare", you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn't apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.

In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with "well, the law doesn't require that". Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we're talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.

There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise.

And the consequence of this policy is a back-door path to censorship. A combination of surveillance, selective-admittance, and media saturation allow certain ideological beliefs to suffice the "marketplace of ideas" while others are silenced.

“I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.”

Its more that privatized media infrastructure allows for a monopolization of speech.

Big media companies still force people to listen to bullshit, by way of advertising and algorithmic promotion. Go on YouTube, click through their "recommended" list a few times, and you'll quickly find yourself watching some Mr. Beast episode or PraegerU video, simply because these folks have invested so heavily in self-promotion.

But there's a wide swath of content you won't see, either because YouTube's algorithm explicitly censors it for policy reasons, because the media isn't maxing out the SEO YouTube execs desire (the classic Soy Face thumbnail for instance), or because you're not spending enough money to boost visibility.

This has nothing to do with what the generic video watcher wants to see and everything to do with what YouTube administration wants that watcher to see.

RFK Jr is a nasty little freak with some very toxic beliefs. But that's not why he's struggling to get noticed on the platform, when plenty of other nasty freaks with toxic beliefs get mainstream circulation.

I remember seeing be was a guest on Rogan and thinking, "Oh, wow. I guess I'll listen to Rogan again this one time to hear a Kennedy talking."

Turns out it was right on fucking brand for Rogan.

it’s gotta be posturing for his base “lone hero stands up to big tech”

He lets the worm do the thinking.

They’re oppressing him! The chatbot said so!!

It’s ok. He can’t get elected anyway

I’m betting this gets dismissed before discovery

IDK, I think it can be an effective tool against trolls because it wastes the time they'd otherwise spend harassing people.

But that's not what RFK is, he's a legitimate candidate for president and should be given the same consideration other candidates are, not shadowbanned because someone doesn't like his message.

Sadly, that’s not the only conspiracy he’s into

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=53fa64e3cef7