Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and other social media platforms have so much power, and such a wide audience, that if they decide to ban a politician or public figure from using their services they effectively cripple that person’s ability to communicate and get their message out. Should that be allowed? If a public figure is unpopular, is that a good enough reason to effectively censor him by taking away his access to an audience?
It’s a difficult issue. At one point in the conversation I ask Allum if people have a right to “be an asshole” and if people should be protected from the repercussions of antagonistic speech. Allum suggests that “political beliefs” might need to be protected in the same way that “religious beliefs” are. Check out the interview:
Let me know what you think. Should people who are assholes suffer the possible backlash of being banned from important communication platforms like Twitter, Reddit and Facebook? Or do these platforms have so much power that they have a responsibility to make sure that unpopular points of view have a voice?
As always, please subscribe to my Youtube channel if you haven’t already! Do me a huge favor and leave your comments on Youtube, and I’ll be sure to respond.
Remember you can always get to my channel easily by typing gregstevens.tv.
Unfortunately I only got one “bonus screenshot” from this video, and that’s just a very boring one. I’ll try to make more goofy faces (and get them from my guests, as well) in the future!