This is still up lol
Bout halfway through, have to respect that Megyn is the only person I can think of whoâs reviled by both the left and Trump fans. The left for being anti cancel culture and asking blackface questions, from Trump for bleeding out of her wherever. You gotta hand it to her.
It was pretty good. Megyn is a good interviewer. The Parler CEO talked about how sudden all this was and Amazon went from having weekly conversations with Parler about their growth and if there was anything they could do to help Parler grow to just abruptly cutting off their service. He made the point that all the posts that people were passing around twitter were against the Parler TOS and were removed. Megyn told him that, speaking as a lawyer, their antitrust lawsuit sucked and wasnât going to work. But that they should do a free speech lawsuit, as an op ed in the WSJ advocated today. Parler guy didnât know anything about the law or the lawsuit. It sounds like theyâre pretty screwed and wonât be back online for weeks, if they ever are.
The substack CEO was kind of whatever. Greenwald said pretty much what youâd expect, thought he was great. Both Greenwald and Megyn said they werenât worried about their own voice being silenced but that the current climate makes it hard for outside of the mainstream people to build their own followings. Seems true.
Megyn also has a terrific radio voice and should get a Jeopardy guest host audition.
2 Likes
Sheâs hated by âthe leftâ for being âon the rightâ hth
Megyn Kelly also somewhat recently had Sam Harris on, and while she transparently fluffed him in the intro and they sung from the same hymnbook during the first segment on cancel culture, when they discussed the President she was pretty assertive with her bullshit and âwonâ easily imo. Or rather Sam lost because he did not seem used to being challenged by a top tier Fox News hack.
But no, sheâs still awful in almost every way and makes terrible arguments.
Good thing they donât have something important to talk about like the attempted overthrow of the US government by a sitting President.
1 Like
3 Likes
The only thing I would think they could do is breach of contract.
She didnât spend much time on it but her argument was that Apple, Google, and Amazon collectively can suppress speech as powerfully as any government. She didnât say this, but maybe kind of alluding to company town decisions from decades ago?
How is that any different from three national networks not giving air time to people? Where in the constitution are you guaranteed a platform?
And how is this different from bakers not making gay cakes? At least in this instance there is some reason for not providing service instead of âtheyâre icky.â
1 Like
Itâs very different from TV because there is a finite amount of air time that is obviously going to be doled out to very few people. The app stores are open to anyone who meets certain standards.
No, they canât -even if they controlled all of the internet which they donât- unless thereâs some new kind of iPolice that can arrest and/or fine you.
2 Likes
Thatâs hyperbolic, and Megynâs hyperbole and not mine. Also a paraphrase from memory, she might not have quite said that.
But itâs true that those tech companies can suppress speech more effectively than many governments could, even if they lack the oppressive tools of the state. A town can fine or throw you in jail for distributing political literature on the sidewalk, which the tech companies canât do. But they have the ability to destroy Twitterâs competitor Parler at any moment, without using those tools.
So are you advocating for a Socialist or Fascist replacement of Capitalism? You stan for Greewald so I suspect we donât really need to ask.
Was regulating the railroads fascistic or socialistic? The telephone companies?
Just a bad take and a total misrepresentation of what the internet is.
People complaining that everyone on the internet is big forced to broadcast their takes is horrible.
There are countless ways to share content online that have zero to do with any of those corporations.
Again itâs amusing you push this on a privately owned forum on the internet related to a published podcast where neither is impacted by any of those entities.
The argument is nonsense and is trying to demand private citizens and corporations be forced to deliver content they have no interest in.
1 Like
Greenwald and Megyn both said they werenât being censored and werenât worried about being censored personally.