at the end of Ben Collins’s reply to Glenn’s hall monitor tweet, found this gem
13 Likes
I don’t think there’s anything intended by it. There’s been a couple of articles detailing out the transition of the bulk of NYT’s income from advertising to subscriptions. He’s probably just remembering them
It would be funny if like, a stripper complained about having to be on onlyfans of a podcast on patreon like these guys grift about having to be on substack
https://twitter.com/benschwartz_/status/1330786113611448327
Dude. Carlin would have been so all over Trump. It’s about punching up vs. punching down. POTUS is the most powerful person in the world and GG is comparing him to Lenny Bruce in terms of persecution.
Greenwald knows the difference. He is being totally disingenuous. He is just another in a long list of the people who have given up any shred of their previous credibility in the Trump era.
The derposphere is extremely profitable. Nothing else to it. He doesn’t need to be bought by Putin or whatever.
1 Like
Would Bruce or Carlin have been insisting that clubs blacklist pro-Trump comics? Doubt it.
Lol there is such a thing?
Also this sounds a lot like the fictional war on Christians.
Plenty of liberals are, as Greenwald says, begging Twitter and Facebook to censor this person or censor that view. Hard to imagine Bruce would do the same thing.
They are asking to censor trump in that tweet not some comedian.
Right. Censorship is Bad, Actually. Even if it’s Trump.
Oh I forgot you are keeeeeeeeeeweeeding! My bad.
You’re pro-censorship for people you hate and views you despise. You know what that’s called? Being pro-censorship. Everyone is anti-censorship for views they themselves hold.
President is just people.
Keeeeeeeeeeweeeeeeeeeeeeeed
The president is just a person, just like everyone else. If others shouldn’t be censored then the president shouldn’t be censored either. More importantly, if the president is censored than others will be censored as well.
Compelling!
You do not have a first amendment right to knowingly defame people without consequence. The problem is that practically there are no consequences in our society.
The ideal way this would go is that Trump can say whatever he wants on Twitter, his victims can immediately sue him and get him to get him to testify under oath. He then admits he is lying and pays damages or continues lying and is immediately prosecuted for perjury.
In reality, if the victim tries to do this, they go broke on lawyer fees, Trump ties it up in court for half a decade even if they are persistent and ~nothing significant happens at the end anyway. So Trump has spent the last 5 years knowingly and intentionally defaming everyone under the sun with outrageous lies without suffering any consequences. Seems like a problem 
5 Likes
The entire lifespan of social media/forums/everywhere online is of people who are not famous/popular being censored and those with power/popularity not being.
Why are we treating this as something new keed? If you tweeted the same things Trump did, it wouldn’t go well for you.
1 Like
Why are these dummies giving money to substack. Blogs have been a thing for decades. A domain is like $10 a year and hosting is cheap. Why are they splitting money with them? Makes zero sense.
Can’t wait until substack has to kick their first “writer” because their existence is hurting everyone else.
Jesus all of these people are a fucking clown show who apparently first found the internet in 2020.
1 Like
If the 1st Amendment allows the President of the United States to lie to the American public in an attempt to undermine our elections then perhaps the 1st Amendment needs to be revisited.
5 Likes
Widespread lobbying of tech companies to censor certain views or people does seem new, in the past couple of years.