4 ms·
And? How is that relevant? I really quite loathe this line of argument that the source or even the intentions behind a probably factual statement should be tak
by Karunamon 6y ago
And? How is that relevant?
I really quite loathe this line of argument that the source or even the intentions behind a probably factual statement should be taken into account when evaluating the truthfulness of the statement. It's textbook ad hominem, literally argument to the person.
PH has a demonstrable problem with child porn on its service. I don't care if it's the US government, a different government, a religious fundamentalist, a competitor, a lobbying group, or some random anonymous internet user surfacing that problem so long as it's verifiably true.
Intention factors into evaluation of the speaker, not the content. To do otherwise is to discard important, actionable facts because you dislike the speaker. In other words, it discards logic.
- wolco2 6y agoThe stats compared to facebook show the opposite. 100 or so items over three years is a success story compared to any other social network. You need trust in the messager. If this person has religious objections ignoring that is ignoring reality. The messager is the message
- Raphmedia 6y ago1 rape or child-porn video is already too much. Comparing to other websites is meaningless and insensitive. We are not comparing performance statistics but broken lives. Telling the judge that your neighbor is more criminal than you won't help you in any court case.
- wolco2 6y agoComparing social media sites incidents and take down polcies for these types of sites are not meaningless. If someone emailed you some material should your emailbox, you or all email be taken away from society? The reality of user generated content being uploaded and breaking a sites tos is all too common.