3 ms·

> twitter can ban whomever they like, for whatever reason, except for the usual exceptions (religion, race etc). I think we either need to get rid of those exc

• Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Why would those even be exceptions or treated differently. I find it a rather arbitrary standard I so often encounter. How would banning for religion be different than banning for any other opinion? So long as an opinion asserts the existence of a higher being it is inviolate? All I need to claim to be unbannable for saying that vaccines cause cancer is simply add “This was told to me by the almighty creator Zefron of Zefronism” and that small differences turns an ordinary falsehood into a religion? Can I deny the holocaust in Germany by simply making it a tenant of a religion? It seems awfully arbitrary to me.
  • bgilroy26 6y ago
    Before the movement of peoples accelerated greatly in the mid 20th century, identity was determined by a few factors and they were practically constitutive of who people were Think about the adhoc communal living options that are available to people who want to live in intentional community in SF, consider side by side people like conservative Mennonite churchgoers in rural Illinois. The idea is not that anyone can or should pull an L Ron, the point is that those identity factors are more or less taken to be extraneous of someone's behavior They are default bad reasons to ban someone, not an exhaustive list, just good rules of thumb
• davrosthedalek 6y ago
  Historically speaking, the exceptions relate to properties which got many people killed. So from that perspective, I'd hope we'll not add more, but maybe can retire some of them. Not super optimistic about that though.