Did you read the article I posted?

@Naomi Yes, but your article is based upon a Xtian educational place "Perhaps the most egregious example of the right’s anti-speech attitude lies in Liberty University, a private Christian university" and emphasis 'private'. Far different parameters than public, wouldn't you say? If it was a private Muslim university would that 'most egregious example' hold true? And then how would that answer hold with application in a reality, such as Muslims and involuntary female circumcision?

If by "Conservatives and liberals should work together to challenge this dominant narrative" you mean mending fences, well I wasn't the one who destroyed them in 'peaceful protest' expressions. Mending fences comes from the colloquial good fences make good neighbors. Building the sandcastle on the beach and the bully comes and kicks it down, then offers to help build it back up, just to kick it down again, is just a repetition of clinical insanity.

I have nothing against students trying to work out things together, they going to have to do it and work together when their time in life comes and they are the elders, if they survive that long.

And personally, I resent that you have done a flying monkey and have me defend the bigotry of Jerry Falwall and the rights of the privacy of opinions of Christians. They are entitled to their opinions and rhetoric, even though I personally am probably on their anathema list. And your article is from April 2019, interesting.

The real danger to free speech is not from the right wing or the left wing of this Dodo bird. It is big tech like Facebook and You Tube. Training AI to censor and control people. Just try talking about 'stop the steal' and see how long that stays up. You are just playing building fences which will become the walls of your internment concentration camps. They are going to control the universe through the classic divide and conquer tactic.

As for "liberals who don’t want to hear dissenting opinions" name one that you can talk to that does not fall back unto their basic tenets defense system of gaslighting, contradictory, hypocritical, irrational specious logic, the prevalent use of demagoguery, and then because you are disagreeing with them or questioning them, pointing out the cognitive dissonance and tergiversation that becomes equivocation THEY accuse you by shaming and attempting to shame into compliance and submission. Its only dominant because the narrative is controlled by who?

Those folks are the primary propagators of the narrative. They do it because it's their job.

@WilyRickWiles I thought Eric Weinstein was left leaning.

@WilyRickWiles @RobBlair
And supposing it is true that people like Weinstein and Beck, and billionaires are propagating the dominant narrative in favour of the right because they have political and business interests, and they own one side and have hegemony over the other, why isn't the other side fighting back (or it seems that they aren't fighting back)? Why is that "the right trying to shut down the left" doesn't get much media attention?

@Naomi Billionaires, as shown by political donations, are dominantly on the left. The left dominates the narrative through their position in the culture - college, hollywood, press, big tech (FB, Twitter, Amazon, etc...). Save for a few outlets, any 'attention' is being provided with a leftist promoting narrative. In this case, the big tech companies are fully within their right to deplatform icky conservatives because we found some examples where the left was harassed.

@Naomi He's Peter Thiel's hedge fund manager and he's angling to be a media personality for other far right-wing billionaires. It's not like we're just observing his own personal philosophical debates. His job is to propagate a far right narrative.

@Naomi The neoliberal establishment does not fight back because they are under the hegemony of those interests. They don't fight period because it's not in THEIR interest. The left does fight back, but they don't have hegemony over mainstream media. C.f. Sam Seder et al.

@RobBlair I'm not arguing for Democrats; I'm simply a bystander, but according to this link, it seems that the number of democratic donors and the number of republican donors are even. This kind of findings make me a bit nosy, Lol [opensecrets.org]

@WilyRickWiles
"He's Peter Thiel's hedge fund manager."
Ah yes, I forgot about that.

@WilyRickWiles
"The left does fight back, but they don't have hegemony over mainstream media."
Now that confuses me. They (the right) always say that big tech companies and media are left wing, no? If that is true, it would be logical to think that it is easy for them to propagate left narratives rather than right narratives.

@Naomi - my fault. You are correct. The data must have been president specific where Biden large contributions are significantly higher as a total and percentage.

@Naomi Peter Thiel is on the board of Facebook and they constantly cater to the right. The Daily Caller is one of their fact checkers. Zuckerberg and Sandberg are center-right at best. Their moderation scheme is agnostic to moral and systemic context. Chris Hughes (no longer at Facebook) is fairly progressive.

@Naomi Google I would say is center-left if not center, and their employees are fairly progressive.

@Naomi Microsoft is of the center. Oracle is of the right. Amazon and Bezos are center-right. Bezos's ex is fairly progressive.

@Naomi Apple is probably of the center.

@WilyRickWiles Wow, how interesting! (I'm not being sarcastic.) This is all new to me. That is why I think it is worth questioning generally accepted narratives and ideas.

@WilyRickWiles, @RobBlair It is getting harder and harder to find impartial information.

@WilyRickWiles - Microsoft 'of the center' gave $18 mil to democrat elections and $1.6 mil to republicans for 2020. center left Google gave $25.7 and $1.3. Oracle $0.79 and $0.38. Amazon $0.64 and $0.63. Your perspective is off kilter.

@WilyRickWiles "Apple is of the center" - wow... $6.6 mil to $0.5.
@Naomi - I like opensecrets.org good source although sometimes incomplete.

@RobBlair The Democrats are center-left.

Facebook's moderation drives everyone crazy but I don't think it intentionally discriminates based on ideology. They try to codify it so that low-wage labor can do it. Sometimes that means they overstep, but most of the time they don't go far enough.

Facebook caters to the right because right-wing business interests have skillfully lobbied them and leveraged Republican Congressional leaders. That's where the narrative comes from.

When right-wing people complain about censorship on Facebook, it's usually because some far right figure or outlet (e.g. Milo, QAnon, The Daily Stormer, etc.) has been banned. And they blame the left when it's really centrists making the decision.

Tech runs on ads (and the aforementioned cheap labor and automation), and advertisers don't like controversy.

Far left content has been banned as well, e.g. anarchists.

YouTube is also a target of the narrative even though they even-handedly demonetize things that might be controversial, e.g. politics.

@RobBlair Also, compare the employees' political spending to the companies' PAC spending and owners and executives' political spending. I was only talking about employees above when I mentioned them explicitly. Owners and executives are more to the right.

Of the blue names of top 10 names on the list Naomi provided, Bloomberg is of the center, Steyer is fairly progressive, and Moskovitz (also former Facebook) and Jurvetson are center-left. Meanwhile all of the red names (6 in total) are of the far right.

@RobBlair
opensecrets.org is a new discovery for me.

@RobBlair, @WilyRickWiles
In 2019, intentionally or unintentionally, Facebook revealed in court that it was a publisher, not a platform, when a woman sued Facebook for removing her account. As a publisher, Facebook is responsible for its content. That is, they can make editorial changes and make decisions on whether to suspend/remove user accounts. When it is convenient, FB pretends to be a platform claiming that it is protected under Section 230. They can't have it both ways.
[yaircohen.co.uk]
[docs.reclaimthenet.org]

@Naomi For sure. They are a platform monopoly and that makes their moderation power problematic.

What authority?

You mean from both sides?