4 ms·

This is probably a good move. They should also suppress fake news sites that are obviously not satire, but are meant to mislead. I can't believe I actually supp

This is probably a good move. They should also suppress fake news sites that are obviously not satire, but are meant to mislead. I can't believe I actually support preventing people from sharing things, but somehow this propaganda has to be exposed. This is a sad state we are in now.

leereeves 10y ago
This is a corporation enforcing its world view. Would you say the same if Twitter were owned by the right-wing and was banning left wing users?
- antidaily 10y ago
  No its really not.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Do you mean it's really not a corporation enforcing its worldview? Or it's really not the same if the wings were reversed?
- spamizbad 10y ago
  There are several major "right wing" corporations that do just that. As a consumer you can make your choices accordingly (Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A come to mind) You might be inclined to grant someone permission to stand on your lawn, but chances are if they stood on your lawn and then held up a sign that said "Send Jews to the gas chambers!" you'd likely ask them to leave. And if they refused, you'd eventually force them to leave. And calling that expulsion "enforcing your world view" would be a very extreme way of explaining what you did.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    Are you saying Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A have banned leftist from shopping there?
    - ascagnel_ 10y ago
      Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A have moved to force their world-view on others.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  It's voluntary and free. If you don't like it build your own or go elsewhere. It is their community. Clearly they have made their choice over the cost/benefit of continued association with some people.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  Funny how this argument only shows up when it affects right-wingers. And it's a false equivalence anyway.
benmarks 10y ago
Thank god I'm not the only one blanching at the thought of supporting this censorship. I'm truly in a quandary over it.
return0 10y ago
> fake news sites that are obviously not satire Are Stephen Colbert / daily show etc. included in the list?

leereeves 10y ago

This is a corporation enforcing its world view. Would you say the same if Twitter were owned by the right-wing and was banning left wing users?

antidaily 10y ago
No its really not.
- grzm 10y ago
  Do you mean it's really not a corporation enforcing its worldview? Or it's really not the same if the wings were reversed?
spamizbad 10y ago
There are several major "right wing" corporations that do just that. As a consumer you can make your choices accordingly (Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A come to mind) You might be inclined to grant someone permission to stand on your lawn, but chances are if they stood on your lawn and then held up a sign that said "Send Jews to the gas chambers!" you'd likely ask them to leave. And if they refused, you'd eventually force them to leave. And calling that expulsion "enforcing your world view" would be a very extreme way of explaining what you did.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Are you saying Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A have banned leftist from shopping there?
  - ascagnel_ 10y ago
    Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A have moved to force their world-view on others.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway5752 10y ago
It's voluntary and free. If you don't like it build your own or go elsewhere. It is their community. Clearly they have made their choice over the cost/benefit of continued association with some people.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
MisterBastahrd 10y ago
Funny how this argument only shows up when it affects right-wingers. And it's a false equivalence anyway.

benmarks 10y ago

Thank god I'm not the only one blanching at the thought of supporting this censorship. I'm truly in a quandary over it.

return0 10y ago

> fake news sites that are obviously not satire Are Stephen Colbert / daily show etc. included in the list?