I am all too aware that the intended meaning of words changes over time, and even changes in different contexts. Yes it gets very confusing very quickly.
I am equally aware that I would fail a "purity test" for certain meanings of the word "Conservative". So be it. Nobody is perfect. Nobody should expect perfection from anybody else.
The Leftist monstrosity routinely changes the meaning of words to suit their own objectives, and then presses their arguments using the newly loaded terms. It is pointless to accept criticism of any kind from Leftists.
My purity-test fail is that I believe large corporations should be significantly restrained in what they are allowed to do, and those restraints should be explicitly defined under a Rule-Of-Law. Smaller corporations and organizations should get a slightly relaxed set of restraints.
Yes - I would exempt FR from sanctions that I would recommend for Twitter. No, I am not "better than that".
Large corporations tend strongly towards fascism. Large Government departments tend strongly towards communism or socialism. Neither group can be trusted in the long run.
Twitter is large enough and influential enough that they should be held fully responsible for the content they publish. They have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are a propaganda arm of the "Deep State".
They want to censor dissidents ("right-wing extremists")? Fine. They want to tolerate Left-wing posters who openly promote slander, assaults, and murder of "right-wing extremists"? Destroy that company with legal sanctions.
Yes, I will need to hold my own postings here at FR to a clean standard, avoiding promotion of slander, assaults, or murder of opponents. Seems like a Fair Deal to me. And I believe that it is already the policy of the management in this forum.
Good ideas and thank you. I am sure Rush Limbaugh would have agreed with you and that qualifies you as a conservative under current understanding. There is copious precedent for breaking trusts and monopolies. The absolute antithesis of conservative ideal is MONOPOLY regardless of how it is labelled or the mechanism of protection used.
Our friends are also making an error of language in their use of “private company” as if those words signified what I understand as an imaginary ideal. The fact is Twitter can censor like a private company and they are immune from lawsuits over content. There is nothing “conservative” about letting them have it both ways. This situation is closer to Italian style fascism, what Hilary C. used to euphemistically call “Public-Private Partnerships.”
Kind regards FReeper!