• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Okay, but you do see how thats pretty boutique compared to the local news channels, let alone the giants, right?

    Small things are allowed to exist that oppose the dominant ideology until they meaningfully threaten it.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any grassroots media is going to be “boutique”. That doesn’t make it not influential, especially when considered as a whole.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        If independent media, as a whole, got too influential to the point that it was threatening the system, it would be targeted. We’ve seen this play out over and over again under capitalism. You literally just have to look to history to see this.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Targeted with what? At least in the US, there has been a build up of case law over the past century and a half or so that provides vigorous protections of freedom of speech. The Red Scare is remembered as a scar on the US’s past, not to be repeated. Yes, there are still people with a vigorous taste for censorship, but there’s vigorous pushback against them.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            At least in the US, there has been a build up of case law over the past century and a half or so that provides vigorous protections of freedom of speech. The Red Scare is remembered as a scar on the US’s past, not to be repeated.

            This is funny because we are currently going through a red scare.