3 ms·

From the article: > Taking down shitty content works...a place for meaningful conversation Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned f

From the article: > Taking down shitty content works...a place for meaningful conversation Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned for sharing factual but 'problematic' news articles or for referencing crime statistics. A good number of users might find such views 'shitty' and not 'meaningful' and that's where the problem lies - people are being deplatformed, not for the red herrings of doxxing and celeb nudes, but simply for having opposing and uncomfortable opinions. Again, from the article: > I still need to use Twitter for work, but my personal view is that any content I contribute is promoting white supremacy Madness. Anyone with such a bizarre personal view ought not to be taken seriously.

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
> Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned for sharing factual but 'problematic' news articles or for referencing crime statistics. These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda, and private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. > > I still need to use Twitter for work, but my personal view is that any content I contribute is promoting white supremacy > Madness. Anyone with such a bizarre personal view ought not to be taken seriously. I will agree that that bit she said is bizarre. Not really sure what she meant by that. I wouldn't dismiss everything else she said just because of one line, though. Each individual statement should be evaluated by its own merits. Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem.
- factsaresacred 8y ago
  > These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda I agree in part. I don't think the agenda matters though. You shouldn't be banned for sharing facts. > private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. Of course, but is 'agenda pushing' on a public forum really a surprise? And why can some types of agendas be pushed and not others? Whether you agree with what's being shared is irrelevant - the point is there should be fairness and consistency when implementing policy. That has not always been the case. > Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem. Sure but if somebody believes that merely posting on Twitter promotes white supremacy, it signals that they're slightly hyperbolic and so should be taken with a pinch of salt.
  - Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
    > I agree in part. I don't think the agenda matters though. You shouldn't be banned for sharing facts. The agenda absolutely matters (see below). Claiming some of these people are simply "sharing facts" is dishonest. If someone with a racist agenda tweets something about black crime, it's not just for simple educational purposes, they're trying to rationalize attacks on black people. They're trying to stir up their followers to strengthen their hate. > And why can some types of agendas be pushed and not others? Because agendas based on racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. are inherently malicious and lead to violence against innocent people who's only "crime" was being black/gay/trans/a woman/etc. > Whether you agree with what's being shared is irrelevant - the point is there should be fairness and consistency when implementing policy. That has not always been the case. Agreed, it hasn't always been consistent, and I think that's what Ellen's point. Facebook/Twitter pretend to be against hate speech by banning lesser-known users, but they allowed the popular extremists like Alex Jones and Richard Spencer because they bring in a lot of traffic to the platform. They sold their morals for cash.

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago

> Right now you'll find (or won't, rather) people on Twitter banned for sharing factual but 'problematic' news articles or for referencing crime statistics. These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda, and private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. > > I still need to use Twitter for work, but my personal view is that any content I contribute is promoting white supremacy > Madness. Anyone with such a bizarre personal view ought not to be taken seriously. I will agree that that bit she said is bizarre. Not really sure what she meant by that. I wouldn't dismiss everything else she said just because of one line, though. Each individual statement should be evaluated by its own merits. Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem.

factsaresacred 8y ago
> These crime statistics are often being used to push a racist agenda I agree in part. I don't think the agenda matters though. You shouldn't be banned for sharing facts. > private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for that. Of course, but is 'agenda pushing' on a public forum really a surprise? And why can some types of agendas be pushed and not others? Whether you agree with what's being shared is irrelevant - the point is there should be fairness and consistency when implementing policy. That has not always been the case. > Picking one statement, using it to decide she's crazy, and then using the opinion that she's crazy to dismiss everything else starts to get close to being an ad hominem. Sure but if somebody believes that merely posting on Twitter promotes white supremacy, it signals that they're slightly hyperbolic and so should be taken with a pinch of salt.
- Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
  > I agree in part. I don't think the agenda matters though. You shouldn't be banned for sharing facts. The agenda absolutely matters (see below). Claiming some of these people are simply "sharing facts" is dishonest. If someone with a racist agenda tweets something about black crime, it's not just for simple educational purposes, they're trying to rationalize attacks on black people. They're trying to stir up their followers to strengthen their hate. > And why can some types of agendas be pushed and not others? Because agendas based on racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. are inherently malicious and lead to violence against innocent people who's only "crime" was being black/gay/trans/a woman/etc. > Whether you agree with what's being shared is irrelevant - the point is there should be fairness and consistency when implementing policy. That has not always been the case. Agreed, it hasn't always been consistent, and I think that's what Ellen's point. Facebook/Twitter pretend to be against hate speech by banning lesser-known users, but they allowed the popular extremists like Alex Jones and Richard Spencer because they bring in a lot of traffic to the platform. They sold their morals for cash.