That is because the complaints about left wing threats to free speech are always incredibly dubious like the government asking social media sites to take down what was widely considered dangerous Covid misinformation or some random college professor saying people should use "Latinx". In comparison, the right wing attacks on free speech are like the FCC threatening people for mild jokes. Can you name anything the left wing has done that approaches what we just saw with Kimmel?
The Biden administration started this whole TikTok thing in the first place, you just liked the platform at the time and are now getting bit in the ass when the group in power has changed. I'm not interested in which side is supposed to be worse than the other so someone can feel better about the speech they are okay with suppressing, I'm interested in free speech all the time.
The Kimmel thing is indeed a stupid and dangerous attack on free speech, but you can't just wait until the speech under attack is about something you care for to declare that. It's already too late at that point, which is what many of the people you eagerly dismiss as just caring about right wing politics were trying to say.
> Biden started this whole TikTok thing in the first place
No, Trump started it in his first term, Biden just continued it, as did Trump continue what he started.
I stand corrected on the claim I made, merging https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45292731
> The Biden administration started this whole TikTok thing in the first place
No, it didn't.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
I stand corrected on the claim I made, merging https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45292731
Others have addressed "this whole TikTok thing" being attributed to Biden. I asked you for a left wing equivalent for Kimmel and you couldn't name one. Somehow this lack of an equivalent left wing attack is evidence of them sharing responsibility for this right wing attack on free speech. That is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm not going to "waste time in an internet debate with someone" who can't see the silliness of the argument you just made.
Fair on "starting", I should have said "was perfectly in support of and did not attempt to stop" https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-administration-leave-t... and I'm willing to see it was silly to forget the specifics by claiming a different sequence to the topic - hopefully you are also willing to make the same kinds of considerations instead of only using such questions as assumptions of other people.
There is no lack of "equivalent left wing attack", just shifts on when it's okay to do based on how much the individual agrees with it. I've had this exact conversation with right wing folks but the other way around (where nothing conservative was unreasonable suppression but plenty left wing was unreasonable suppression). Because you agree with the views of whatever the Biden admin supported e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... then you don't consider it a problem (and yes, the Biden administration likes to claim it was just building on something the Trump administration had started... which gets us nowhere in actually doing something positive for free speech instead of using it as a blame game). Because someone else agrees with Trump/Kirk they don't consider it a problem. As a result, there is nothing I can say that will make anyone agree when things are equivalent. The difference is not that I agree with a different agenda, nor do I need to find equivalence, it's that I'm not interested in weighing the speech itself.
I, obviously, don't like Russian misinformation (or human smugglers or whatever thing is obviously malintended), but I don't think trying to have a government body decide what is misinformation is a good way to solve the concerns. That's what a free speech absolutist is after all, not just a way to say only a certain party did something bad. I could go on and on about specific instances, but all that does is rile people up about "why would you put that in a list of bad things" or "that's obviously not as big a deal to worry about" whenever they see something they tend to agree with. Those not in support of free speech have no problem saying other transgressions on free speech are a bigger deal, just in agreeing what "other" is.
Supporting free speech is not about agreeing with the speech, it's about tackling any perceived bad speech with open means instead of power. I don't agree with either the Biden or Trump administrations on the ways either seek to suppress social media, regardless if you think some are justified and others aren't. You think it's okay to suppress things as long as they seem harmless or small to you, I don't. That's the only fair assumption of what a free speech absolutist is.
I will give credit that at least my original comment isn't already flagged dead for saying I'm really about free speech instead of the opposition, which has been the typical result the previous 4 years.
In addition to what people already said, Biden isn't left-wing.
I'd tend to agree (I voted Jill Stein) but in context of U.S. politics he's usually considered as such (at least as center left, not center right or even center), albeit less so than some other figures.
On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being left and 10 being right, Biden's about a 6, and Trump is like 10.
I'd also agree Trump is more conservative than Biden is liberal, but I think we're getting a bit into the weeds here...
The point with Biden and Trump is whenever free speech is mentioned, people conclude the part of a political spectrum they identify with is being attacked by someone they perceive as being on a different part, with no belief there could ever be a person actually worried about free speech itself. It's not at all about whether I agree or disagree with where they perceive that threat to be from on the spectrum, it's just what such people like to claim. I've yet to see a normal political spectrum where 100% of folks agree with free speech absolutism, even when inconvenient.
To folks who actually care about free speech instead of partisan politics, the idea of debating where on a scale of 1 to 10 the source of the threat might be from is in itself absurdly irrelevant. To folks that don't care about free speech, it's convenient to perceive free speech claims as only ever having a hidden partisan agenda instead of allowing the possibility of a free speech absolutist. The only exception I can think to any of this is a political spectrum where one side is "free speech absolutism" itself.