Dorsey may be gone, but the guy who replaced him is 20 times worse, believe it or not, when it comes to wanting to censor voices that they don’t agree with, there was a debate in the public square, and they weren’t always winning, and when you’re not winning, and you have the power to shut off the other voice, it seems almost natural that that’s what you would do.

Justin Danhof

The company is willfully giving up money. by Justin Danhof

The company is willfully giving up money.

There is no pretense left, it’s just blatant, it’s obvious, it’s very obvious to any objective observer what’s going on these days.

They have the power, they can choose to use it for evil or good, that’s up to them.

The original idea of lots of Silicon Valley companies … They started as these free platforms, right? We are really going to liberate communication in the United States of America, we’re not going to censor, and that was part of the deal that they got with the government, right? That’s the whole Section 230 debate is they were given immunity for what was said on their platform because it was going to be a place for freedom of speech.

If I’m Discovery, I’m not taking on current legal liabilities that may come out of the existence. I’m writing that into the acquisition that, look, ATT, that’s still on you, i’m sure their lawyers are negotiating all of that right now.

If Discovery is smart, they’ll transition CNN back to what it was decades ago, it’s a gamble, but an opportunity to course correct that I hope they take. With the ratings where they are this is a financial nightmare … If they're going to bring CNN on and keep CNN as it is, they're making a terrible business decision.

They all had contracts, right? It can get very messy and very sticky because when you see, like, this person's going to get a $9 million payout, but this [other] person isn't going to get anything, that creates a lot of discrepancies.

I think that's what Stelter may be getting at.

Discovery is taking a really big gamble, in my estimation.

I suspect this case will do little to stem the tide of anti-conservative bias and treatment of conservative employees in corporate America writ large and Silicon Valley specifically.