4 ms·

The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with.

The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. There's been a huge uptick in that over the last several months, and with the disgusting episode in Washington, it kicked into high gear these past few days. It's affecting people who have very little in common with the people who engaged in illegal acts there, too. There are topics that correlate with disfavored political views but are not directly related to politics that have practically been eliminated from Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. It's probably not illegal, but it's disturbing to watch.

na85 6y ago
>The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. Oh please. It's political speech, all right, but the difference here is that it's political speech in the wake of a bunch of guys with knives, bombs, and zip ties trying to storm the US Senate to subvert the democratic process, and the political speech is advocating more of the same. This isn't just someone saying odious things, it's calls to make a second attempt at armed insurrection.
- JasonFruit 6y ago
  You don't have to defend speech that everyone likes. It's when it's unpopular and you could make an argument for banning it that it's most important to make arguments against banning that speech. If we let people we don't agree with be silenced, how long until those precedents silence us?
  - na85 6y ago
    That's missing the forest for the trees. Instigating a mob to attack the Senate with knives and zipties is not the kind of free speech that needs to be protected.
devmunchies 6y ago
nah, biggest difference is increased centralization of internet powers enabling the ability to mass censor with few switches.

na85 6y ago

>The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. Oh please. It's political speech, all right, but the difference here is that it's political speech in the wake of a bunch of guys with knives, bombs, and zip ties trying to storm the US Senate to subvert the democratic process, and the political speech is advocating more of the same. This isn't just someone saying odious things, it's calls to make a second attempt at armed insurrection.

JasonFruit 6y ago
You don't have to defend speech that everyone likes. It's when it's unpopular and you could make an argument for banning it that it's most important to make arguments against banning that speech. If we let people we don't agree with be silenced, how long until those precedents silence us?
- na85 6y ago
  That's missing the forest for the trees. Instigating a mob to attack the Senate with knives and zipties is not the kind of free speech that needs to be protected.

devmunchies 6y ago

nah, biggest difference is increased centralization of internet powers enabling the ability to mass censor with few switches.