AfD? Those jokers are never going to win an election of any sort of note. They'll scrape for provinces and claw for mayoral wins, but they're never going to have a winning share in the actual government. And they know it.
As for Fidesz, Hungary is basically a dictatorship by now and not reflective of the EU in general. They're ruled over by a gang of fanatical Christian despots that probably think by now that electricity is a sin. And Fidesz is the forefront of that. They were recently pointed out to not exactly be a real Democracy.
You're pointing out a few outstanding examples to try and make the EU countries seem worse than they really are. If it were up to me, I'd kick out Hungary from the EU and put so many sanctions on them they'd freefall into oblivion. And AfD has no business existing.
You're right, Fidez is an outlier. But AfD is not. Right-wing extremists are getting more numerous and influential all over Europe. More and more Europeans are in favor of not just changes in immigration policy, but outright expelling people based on their ethnic/racial group, regardless of citizenship status or criminal record.
Do you honestly believe that hate speech laws would have stopped the Nazis from coming to power?
Germany also has a history of grand coalitions. It would probably take the AfD winning an outright majority of the second vote to form government; my guess is that the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Greens would rather form a government with Die Linke than let the AfD anywhere near power. (And they don't especially want to form government with Die Linke, probably, but Die Linke is part of the government in Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia anyway alongside the SPD and Greens.)
EDIT: As for AfD existing, they serve as a useful net to catch all the anti-Semites and other such nutcases who can be kicked out of the mainstream parties and left to rot at ~12% in the Bundestag while the rational people run the country.
That's basically what a lot of people used to say about the Sweden Democrats, but now they're part of mainstream Swedish politics, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't share your optimism.
Weren't you against authoritarian libertarianism just a few days ago?
I am against authoritarian libertarianism. The point I'm making is that if this is the bed that Republicans and conservatives have chosen to lie in, than they can't cry when they realize that it can go both ways. They love an unchecked free market so much but hate it when it's used against them because they're hypocrites.
Not to mention how Twitter doesn't apply its rules rules consistently, and sometimes censors and cracks down on completely innocuous stuff, like their recent suspension of Imam Tawhidi for sharing an anti-terrorism cartoon.
Ok? There's no law that says twitter has to be consistent. They're free to do with they're business as they want.
And again, I feel like you're misunderstanding my positions. I'm not a conservative and I'm against corporate personhood.
You could've fooled me.
There's a Twitter alternative called Gab that's run by groypers, and as you can probably imagine, it has a strong hard-right bias that tends to manifest as having double standards against left-wingers. If it were Gab that were the ubiquitous social media site, rather than Twitter, would you still be against the government forcing social media sites to choose between abiding by the first amendment and keeping their safe harbor protections?
Fox news is the most watched 24 hour news network. Conservatives have a strong stranglehold on talk radio. They use their platforms to spew hate and disinformation all day everyday. They're highly influential and you could argue that they control the narrative on the daily political discourse. I hate this fact but they're free to do this because it's how they want to run their business. The left hates them but you don't see them having toddler temper tantrums like Trump when they censor or edit left wing talking points. If Gab was the number one influencers on social media which thankfully it is not. Than they are free to decide what they want on their platform. Just like Fox.
If it were only the "private companies can do whatever the fuck they want" types, I could at least laugh at them getting what they asked for. But as I've said, it's not.
And yes, it is the law that Twitter has to be consistent if they want to be considered a platform and entitled to safe harbor protections. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Look, I'm trying not to make assumptions about your politics (and I apologize if I have), so I don't think it's too much to expect that you return the favor.
Well, at least you're consistent in applying this to all companies, regardless of their politics. Maybe we have more in common than I thought.
EDIT: I just realized I got you confused with DarkPhoenix, and I'm sorry about that. God, I'm an idiot sometimes.
