3 ms·
No, your point was, "It is if you allow the other side to do exactly the same, as noted in the linked article." The other side is not doing exactly the same. T
by geofft 8y ago
No, your point was, "It is if you allow the other side to do exactly the same, as noted in the linked article."
The other side is not doing exactly the same. The other side never intended to do exactly the same, and for good measure, the CEO promised that if they did, they would be prevented from doing so, too.
You are now making the claim that, if side X exhibits behavior A, and opposing side Y exhibits behavior B, it is no longer legitimate to compare behaviors A and B - whatever the behaviors are, they are exactly the same simply because they're held by opposing sides.
- dingo_bat 8y ago> The other side is not doing exactly the same. The other side wanted a custom icon. They got it. The content of the icon is irrelevant to the question "did twitter censor political views not shared by the CEO?" The answer is "yes", regardless of the content of the icon granted to the other side.
- wybiral 8y agoThe content is important though because it's precisely why they weren't allowed the hashtag. They were allowed other hashtags that didn't have the same negative "attack ad" approach so it doesn't look like politically motivated bias so much as them just not wanting to promote negative attack ads on their platform. You can call it censorship. That's fair. But it's unfair to call it bias or politically motivated censorship.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago"The content of the icon is irrelevant to the question" It absolutely, most certainly is not. The content is quite vital to the decision.