4 ms·

It must be refreshing to be on the right side of history with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, who is anti-white and anti-Semitic. See his tweet about being anti-t

It must be refreshing to be on the right side of history with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, who is anti-white and anti-Semitic. See his tweet about being anti-termite. In your last sentence, are you admitting that Twitter doesn't yet ban far-left groups for cause? If so, shouldn't it be you explaining why you aren't saying a word about a double standard? Twitter claims to be a neutral platform, and eventually it may be equated to a town square, so legal questions will arise even if it is a private business. Also, once it starts editorializing its content, it may become responsible for the groups it seemingly endorses / condones. Twitter is not only censoring extreme groups, so it isn't sufficient to say that a handful of people deserve to get banned. We know that people now generally, even on free-thinking college campuses, self-censor because saying anything controversial can get your life destroyed. We have set a dangerous precedent with "acceptable social commentary" because anyone can be vilified for their ideas even if they are polite and well-reasoned.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
If you think I support Louis Farrakhan, or Twitter in general for that matter, you are confused. Twitter's current stance is wildly inconsistent, and there are plenty of people that they should have banned long ago but haven't, Farrakhan included. They've probably banned some people they shouldn't have, as well. I don't trust them much. But the gaggle of racists and Nazis they've already banned is a good start. > In your last sentence, are you admitting that Twitter doesn't yet ban far-left groups for cause? Nope! I'm saying that I think you don't actually care about free speech for all.
- Robotuxin 8y ago
  You and I aren't connecting on each other's points. FYI, this is only my second comment to you. There's not much to discuss if you don't recognize my previous post to you as a simple warning against the treacherous path that is being taken by Twitter. I didn't want to misstate where your support lied, but you spoke tersely and maybe glibly. Yet, it sounded like the usual talking points of the left so I was compelled to respond more generally. I needed to put the political grandstanding into perspective because, even if there were a method to their madness, Twitter needs to stop, reassess and, hopefully, rethink its mandate. I already stated that Twitter is not banning extremist groups alone, so it's important not to get stuck on reaffirming who deserves to be banned the most. You should see that the _righteous_ banning of (purported) racists, Nazis, Russian bots, and whatever groups they highlight next is convenient cover for their inconsistent, biased actions. Simply put, you can only be sure you are on the right side of history if you are in league with propagandists. If I explicitly declare that they have every justification and are full of good intentions in some such action, it would still be a moot point when trying to address my previous statements. Granted, you don't wholeheartedly approve of Twitter nor the far-left figure I mentioned, but I only name them for the following two reasons. The disgust of indefensible (historical) groups can be used to shift the moral high ground deceptively to the left. No double standard you might point to could possibly draw the main focus away from Twitter's political bias. Moreover, we proponents of free speech can't be said to not care about the inalienable rights of the far-left because we aren't the ones doing the banning nor calling for any bans. In our criticism, we can fairly ask for consistent action, and Twitter obviously fails the request when one of its policies isn't evenly enforced across the political spectrum.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

If you think I support Louis Farrakhan, or Twitter in general for that matter, you are confused. Twitter's current stance is wildly inconsistent, and there are plenty of people that they should have banned long ago but haven't, Farrakhan included. They've probably banned some people they shouldn't have, as well. I don't trust them much. But the gaggle of racists and Nazis they've already banned is a good start. > In your last sentence, are you admitting that Twitter doesn't yet ban far-left groups for cause? Nope! I'm saying that I think you don't actually care about free speech for all.

Robotuxin 8y ago
You and I aren't connecting on each other's points. FYI, this is only my second comment to you. There's not much to discuss if you don't recognize my previous post to you as a simple warning against the treacherous path that is being taken by Twitter. I didn't want to misstate where your support lied, but you spoke tersely and maybe glibly. Yet, it sounded like the usual talking points of the left so I was compelled to respond more generally. I needed to put the political grandstanding into perspective because, even if there were a method to their madness, Twitter needs to stop, reassess and, hopefully, rethink its mandate. I already stated that Twitter is not banning extremist groups alone, so it's important not to get stuck on reaffirming who deserves to be banned the most. You should see that the _righteous_ banning of (purported) racists, Nazis, Russian bots, and whatever groups they highlight next is convenient cover for their inconsistent, biased actions. Simply put, you can only be sure you are on the right side of history if you are in league with propagandists. If I explicitly declare that they have every justification and are full of good intentions in some such action, it would still be a moot point when trying to address my previous statements. Granted, you don't wholeheartedly approve of Twitter nor the far-left figure I mentioned, but I only name them for the following two reasons. The disgust of indefensible (historical) groups can be used to shift the moral high ground deceptively to the left. No double standard you might point to could possibly draw the main focus away from Twitter's political bias. Moreover, we proponents of free speech can't be said to not care about the inalienable rights of the far-left because we aren't the ones doing the banning nor calling for any bans. In our criticism, we can fairly ask for consistent action, and Twitter obviously fails the request when one of its policies isn't evenly enforced across the political spectrum.