Given its tightening grip on free speech, I sincerely wish it to die. Or be beaten by a younger, truly liberal platform.
Kinda funny, today when you say liberal, it could mean a variety of things. From the borderline insanity as used by radicals, all the way back to its true form that is hardly ever used by a few.
The only problem that I have with US-style "free speech" (and it's a problem that a lot of the Western World has with it) is that Americans seem to think that barefaced lies and misinformation that causes serious damage to society should be protected the same as objective and provable fact.
If anyone can just publicly lie without consequences, how do you know if
anything you're being told is the truth? That's why American society is in the shape it's in right now, because the media has been allowed to lie so often that a huge chunk of the population now believes it. This same chunk of the population is so brainwashed even when the people spouting these lies lose EIGHTY-SIX court cases about the very thing they're lying about, the people's blind belief in these lies isn't even dented.
Now, on the other hand, I don't care if something is offensive as long as it is 100%
true. This isn't about left or right, it's about true or false. That means not "true in a way" or "depending on your point of view" because something is either true or it isn't, period. As it is now, nobody with a public pulpit is required to provide any actual evidence to back up their (sometimes crazy) claims.
Sidney Powell's "Kraken" is a perfect example of this. She made all of these wild and baseless claims and despite repeatedly saying that she has all of the evidence she needs to go forward, she has never gone forward with it and has never provided evidence. Hell, even Tucker Carlson threw her under the bus for it and he's not exactly a paragon of honest reporting himself.
Free speech is fine but objectively lying is not. That's where a lot of these platforms draw the line (assuming that they even care enough to draw that line in the first place). Remember that the Internet is international and the USA's idea of free speech only really exists in the USA. These platforms have to be acceptable in
many countries to be viable.
As for the political spectrum, I see it like this (from left to right):
True Positions: Progressive - Liberal/Moderate/Centrist - Conservative
I consider SJWs and fascists to be fake positions because they lie about their identities to begin with. SJWs call themselves progressives but they're not. Fascists call themselves conservatives but they're not. They are both authoritarian/totalitarian doctrines that only differ in what they want to force down the throats of everyone else whether they want it or not. They also both want authoritarian or totalitarian control over the thought and expression of individuals instead of only controlling what is harmful to society. They tend to have overly-powerful negative reactions to things that are driven by emotion instead of the rational and thoughtful objections than would be displayed by the far more rational progressives, liberals and conservatives.
They're also both quite similar in that they get so easily offended that it seems like they're always looking for an excuse to be offended by
something. Their reactions can be so stupidly strong that I often think that they're lying (both of them). They also hate each other more than anyone else. Ironic, isn't it?
