You're joking right? It's a Sun newspaper, a shitty sensationalist tabloid rag in every country. Other newspapers rely on journalism, they find tits and anger will suffice.
You might as well argue that those who think the Daily Mail is stupid are suppressing free speech and re-enforcing their echo chamber. You would look like just as much of an idiot as you do now.
I find it absolutely ludicrous, that people want to enforce their own value judgment on media, and what they are allowed to report on and on what not.
Nobody forces them to buy the Sun - never the less over two million people buy the paper every day. Are you seriously arguing that a paper that 10% of Britain reads every day should be banned from advertising on Twitter, just because you disagree on their reporting style?
Living in a free society means that you have to tolerate different opinions to your own. Sure, if they break certain laws, go and prosecute them.
People arguing on issues like these based on their personal views are in my opinion no better to these who want to ban porn from the internet, because it their personal value judgment says it is wrong.
> I find it absolutely ludicrous, that people want to enforce their own value judgment on media, and what they are allowed to report on and on what not.
I find it hilarious that you consider what the Sun does to be reporting. Like those hard-hitting journalists at the Weekly World News. How dare I tarnish their sparkling reputation with my disparaging of their highly regarded journalism style.
> Are you seriously arguing that a paper that 10% of Britain reads every day should be banned from advertising on Twitter, just because you disagree on their reporting style?
No, I'm arguing they're an indefensible tabloid rag so aligning yourself with them is risky. Nobody is discussing "banning" except you. I would prefer Twitter doesn't accept their advertising dollars and if I see a Sun ad in any of my clients I'm quitting too.
The number of people who read their idiotic rag is neither here nor there. If you're seriously suggesting that at the very least 10% of any group isn't comprised of borderline retards, then you're delusional.
Using my eyeballs and wallet to vote isn't "banning", it's exactly what I'm supposed to do. Vocalize my concerns, try to get a response, and if they're not receptive, take my business elsewhere.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I'm sorry, if someone tries to argue that the Jersey Shore or Bad Girls Club is quality television, if they try to argue that Katy Perry makes amazing original music, that McDonalds is fine cuisine, or if they claim the Sun does real reporting, I'm going to call them an idiot.
Even if it affects my argument negatively, it has to be said. I'm not just going to let that stand because it's an opinion. It's a painfully ignorant opinion, stemming from the "muddy the waters" argument that has become so popular.
You might as well argue that those who think the Daily Mail is stupid are suppressing free speech and re-enforcing their echo chamber. You would look like just as much of an idiot as you do now.