3 ms·
A lot of people are making claims about a "loss" of free speech due to this change. I don't see how this is an issue. Twitter's rules are impartial. I don't se
by marmada 7y ago
A lot of people are making claims about a "loss" of free speech due to this change. I don't see how this is an issue.
Twitter's rules are impartial. I don't see how impartial rules can be exclusionary. Well I can to some degree, in the sense that impartial rules such as "no politics in esports" prevents people from protesting injustices, such as Hong Kong, but Twitter's rules are more about not actively promoting violence.
It is entirely possible that these impartial rules may disproportionately affect certain groups/political parties (white nationalists, Trump, etc.) -- this just means those parties need to get in step with baseline moral standards that simply claim actively promoting violence and exclusion is bad.
Also Twitter is a private company. They can choose who is able to use their platform or not. (At least I think that's how it works, maybe not).
- username90 7y agoThe problem is bias. Just like how making hiring based on race illegal people still do it. So if the admins are biased in favor of one party then they will be very lenient against it and very strict against the other. They might have reasons for every ban "You can't incite hatred" while also have reasons for not banning your own "The hatred is justified in this case as the other side is worse", but the end result still becomes very biased. So in essence the more liberties you give your admins to ban or silence people the more biased your platform becomes.