Comment by simtel20
4 months ago
If I'm reading that correctly, the court is taking this action after requesting that rumble respond to their requests and rumble has not responded. It's not censorship from the get-go, it's brinkmanship from rumble to get this response, it seems
[flagged]
What makes you think I specifically would think differently about apple? I don't think I've said anything here that would indicate that, so it seems like you're projecting.
The idea of a free Internet is an ideal that is subject to the sovereign laws of the country the packets travel to, and that is playing out here. All I know is that it's important to learn the lessons being taught now in the 2020s where control of the data transmitted to populations is how politics is won
Regarding this answer being posted twice, I guess my edit to the response in the wrong thread wasn't accepted, not much anyone but the mods can do about that now.
Accepting censorship as a lost cause will be detrimental to society.
Websites are subject to the laws in which they are based, not the packets' destination!
Example: Germany requires Impressum displayed upon the website. It is requires only for sites based in Germany and not enforceable anywhere else!
6 replies →