5 ms·

> is now clear incitement of violence. It's knowledge we have after the fact. Ehm, what is your logic behind that? That one event has happened before the other

> is now clear incitement of violence. It's knowledge we have after the fact. Ehm, what is your logic behind that? That one event has happened before the other one? Since when is that enough of a "clear" statement? How do you go from that one correlation that you picked to somehow being sure of the causal (not only that, primary causal) connection between the two? Also how did you assign responsibility? Should marilyn manson's music be banned because a columbine shooter has listened to his music days before shooting up a school?

alkonaut 6y ago
> That one event has happened before the other one? That one event happened due to the other one. > Since when is that enough of a "clear" statement? I think it's clear enough for these platforms to take action. > Also how did you assign responsibility? I think a large part of the responsibility lies with president, because of the power of the office. > Should marilyn manson's music be banned because a columbine shooter has listened to his music days before shooting up a school? No? As I said elsewhere, I think the mistake in reasoning when objecting here is that people seem to think a) There could be a rigid objective framework for how this should work. A simple "manual" for how companies should act in these situations instead of having to rely on subjective or biased decisions. or b) In the absence of such a framework, companies must instead never take any action because it risks being arbitrary/subjective/... I think a) is impossible and b) is less desireable than arbitrary/subjective actions like these. That's all.