• MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 days ago

        “Free speech” doesn’t entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.

        • fishy@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          What do you mean, did the Biden admin target any particular shows or networks? Are you also aware the current admin is holding off Paramount’s merger to exert influence over their programming? IDK how free that feels. May not be directly breaking laws, but it’s absolutely a subversion of free speech.

          • MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            No, it’s not. Free speech protects what you say from the government, not your employer. Your employer ALSO has free speech, meaning they can decide what can and can’t be said on their property.

            This is like saying Sesame Street doesn’t show hardcore porn and that’s a violation of free speech.

      • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        4 days ago

        Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?

        That a poor comparison since on x the moderations is about random citizen and not paid employee doing a work for a company that a the end of the day is free to choose how to spent her money

          • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            how much ? cause the cost is high too. anyway

            However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source

        • db2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?

          Even if that were true, which it isn’t, what business does the president have even mentioning it much less making a demand?

          • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s a visceral reaction, my guess. It’s exactly the same argument that right wingers used when oreilly, carlson, etc got canceled.

        Not paying someone millions for saying stuff on TV is not infringing on free speech, now apparently it’s leftists turn to not understand it.