> I think it's generally a good idea to assume good faith (even with corporations) — you can still get your pitchforks up if they do refuse to give away the rights to movie

I take the opposing viewpoint. They don’t have to “refuse” to give away the movie rights, they can just… not do it. Pitchforks in three months or is that still reasonable? Six months? Two years?

I don’t believe a word they say until I see action that backs it up.

Look at their distribution of the Melania movie. It was very obviously a money losing favour to Trump. But they’d never admit as such because why would they? And what do I gain by taking them at their word that it’s a wonderful piece of film deserving of the money spent on it when that’s obviously untrue?

I am quite certain that I am being downvoted because there are people who no longer care about the quality of arguments and think that a poor argument in support of their cause is a good thing.

The bulk of downvotes I have received fall into two categories. One is from people who disagree with me, and the other is from people who believe that my critique of a bad argument means that I believe the opposite to the conclusion of the argument.

The latter is the one that bugs me more. Because I feel that a bad argument in support of a conclusion that I believe is damaging to the understanding of the conclusion because it represents a refuge that anyone arguing the opposite can cling to in order to undermine good arguments. They can legitimately ask "Why should I believe your good argument, if you express a similar degree of support for an obviously flawed argument" It signals that the position is held because of allegiance, not because it is correct.

Even scarier is that it raises the spectre of people passionately advocating for a position when they themselves do not respect the opinion, but simply acknowledge that this is the position of their allegiance.

There is experimental evidence for this on both sides of American politics with people being tested flipping their opinions on identical policies just by presenting them as being the favoured opinion of a different side.

But in practice no, the government cannot compel speech like this due to the first amendment

Corporations are legally humans (in the US). You might not like it, but it is what has allowed our current tech infrastructure to flourish. It's the reason you're able to post this.

> You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios.

I mean, you definitely could do that with a new amendment. Probably not feasible in this age, but never say never.

Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid?

Maybe it's not so simple?

This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters).

Why do you feel differently?

So the government should force them to publish the viewpoint against their will?

We have the info already. Whole books about it. It is innevitable.

We already had a movie where Kevin Spacey played Lex Luthor

OpenAI played Dota 2 for a couple of years