3 ms·
The problem with JAQing off is that, even when it's done after taking the time to fully understand the situation, that generally isn't evident. So it typically
by mumblemumble 6y ago
The problem with JAQing off is that, even when it's done after taking the time to fully understand the situation, that generally isn't evident. So it typically inserts vastly more noise than signal into the discussion.
- ttt0 6y agoI don't know. For example, did anyone argued for shutting Facebook down entirely when they refused to remove holocaust denial? I think this is precisely what people mean with this "meme" and it is a fair point.
- mumblemumble 6y agoYes. And even suggesting otherwise furthers the whole, "I reject reality in order to substitute my own narrative that better supports the position I'm trying to take," thing. And, in this particular context, it's also a non sequitur. Go read the court filings. The story of what actually happened is being told there. It's a public record.
- ttt0 6y agoThe reason I was asking is because I legitimately haven't seen anyone doing that, which suggested to me that this opinion certainly wasn't anywhere near as popular as the opinion that tech companies should take down basically everything that was ever associated with Trump. Most people generally accept that strictly legally speaking tech companies have a right to shut down anyone they want, as long as it doesn't violate the contract (I personally disagree that it should work like this), but I just don't think that is the point.