8 ms·

People need to stop being so lazy and throwing around the word censorship. If a bunch or teenagers come into my coffee shop and start loudly calling each autist

People need to stop being so lazy and throwing around the word censorship. If a bunch or teenagers come into my coffee shop and start loudly calling each autists and retards I'm going to kick them out. I'm not censoring them by kicking them out.

NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
And you need to review the code of conduct for this platform, as you are in violation and, according to your own logic, should be kicked. (Which I oppose)
staticelf 6y ago
It would only be a fair parable if your coffee shop was the only coffeshop in the entire city or that it exists like 1-3 others but you all talk with eachother on the phone and collectively agree to deny those people service.
- onethought 6y ago
  And that still wouldn’t be censorship.
  - staticelf 6y ago
    No ofc not, but that is a coffeshop and not a place where the business is sharing stuff. If the business is a town square where everyone is and your excluding a specific group that is censorship.
    - onethought 6y ago
      But it’s more like a country club than a town square. And 100% country clubs kick you out when you say things they don’t like.
- jsilence 6y ago
  They are free to run their own Matrix, Mattermost, Rocketchat, IRC, whatever node...
  - nix23 6y ago
    Mumble? Teamspeak? It's like everyone forgot the old battle-tested Warhorses.
    - ChainOfFools 6y ago
      I think IRC (which OP mentioned) outranks them all ifor the battle tested warhorse title
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        As if an IRC channel wouldn't be shut down if it threatened oligopoly profits...
        jsilence 6y ago
        All of the big social media networks are corporate property. It is not a public space. So it is their house rules. And rightfully so. If you took their free cookie, choke on it, but don't complain.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        Wow, that's aggressive. All journalists, nearly all politicians, and lots of other people as well communicate largely on social networks owned by these giant amoral artificial creations. What does "public space" even mean anymore? Should we stand on the stroad median with the panhandlers? Would anyone even read our signs? It is possible for citizens to impose conditions on the existence of the corporations their elected government creates.
  - staticelf 6y ago
    Except when people do create their own shit, like Parler, it immedietly gets shut down as soon as it gets popular.
- Traster 6y ago
  There are many coffee shops in the city and there are plenty of social media platforms online (Youtube, Facebook, Tiktok, Reddit, Twitter, Whatsapp, Telegram, Twitch, Pinterest, WeChat, Snapchat). Also, there's really no evidence they're coordinating. If the guys I kick out of my coffee shop walk down the road and start shouting Retard at each other in a different coffee shop they're going to get kicked out of that one too. Not because we're in some big cabal to censor these people, but because actually most people have a fairly similar definition of offensive language, and most coffee shop owners know what's going to drive customers away. At no point does that suddenly turn into censorship.
  - staticelf 6y ago
    I disagree, it is censorship. We all know how hard it is to build a community. To just say go use another platform is really not a fair comparison. Discord and Reddit in this case, even if they're not banned from Reddit yet, is their only means of communicating with eachother. Sure people can create some kind of group / channel on another platform, but if they are banned from one there is no way for them to know where to go. Obviously the group is going to be mostly dispanded when they are banned or removed. I would say this is a kind of censorship. If they would've been given some time, like a week or a month before the banning then I would agree it would not be censorship because then they can assemble somewhere else.
ulucs 6y ago
Thousands of such online communities, and you only throw out the ones that threaten your hedge fund?
- onethought 6y ago
  That isn’t what censorship is. Nor is it a violation of free speech. The government didn’t get involved. Private companies and individuals can do what ever they like with their property, no?
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    Supposedly, until you criticize the idea of taking their money and giving it to everyone who claims to need it more than them. Arguments like these are all to often made out of convenience, but should be made in good faith and on principle. Do you truly believe in their right to private property?
    - onethought 6y ago
      I don’t get your point at all. Are you trying to argue some kind of Marxist position in order to show censorship can exist without government involvement. I’m happy to have a discussion on why capital owners probably stole their wealth at some point. But you need to take me on the journey to how that’s related to censorship
      - betwixthewires 6y ago
        My point is, this argument that "they're a private company" is great, and I 100% agree with it. But I usually find that people that make this argument don't actually believe that these companies have the right to their private property, they just use it because they're ideologically opposed to the people getting banned for whatever reason. They'll say that a private company has the right to it's property and then in the next breath call them evil for having a lot of property and demand that they get taxed out of existence.
betwixthewires 6y ago
This is a tired old argument and it isn't convincing or effective. There's a big difference between some kids screaming in your coffee shop and a community on a website supposedly dedicated to free discussion. A more apt comparison would be a group in a corner having a conversation at a rock concert. Suddenly this argument appears less apt. And while some are screaming for these sites to get shut down over it, most of us aren't. What you see from most of us is recommendation to stop using services that silence you. This is a reasonable response, if someone doesn't like you, go somewhere where they do like you. That's what the comment you're responding to is advocating, embracing and even getting excited about. The internet needs a true public square, not a private entity masquerading as one that for some reason totally unbeknownst to them has to constantly remind everyone that they are not a public square.
- Jonnax 6y ago
  Where does discord say it's for free discussion? In two clicks I found their community guidelines on their website: https://discord.com/guidelines https://discord.com/guidelines Second rule: "Do not organize, promote, or coordinate servers around hate speech. It’s unacceptable to attack a person or a community based on attributes such as their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or disabilities." Calling someone a "retard" or "autist" is considered by Discord to be mocking people with disabilities. Also IRC exists and is still in use by many people. Anyone can set up a server.
  - namibj 6y ago
    It's messed up when there are auto-banning bots that hit those with disabilities for speaking out on the issues they face in everyday life.
    - maccard 6y ago
      Have you read the content on WSB? Here's a link that I found on the top of the top thread of the subreddit [0]. Let's be completely clear here, this isn't someone speaking out about issues they face in everyday life. > ive been folowing this saga since GME was 60 or so but sadly i was too afraid to become autistic, and have now gone full retard And this isn't an isolated comment, there are hundreds of comments like it in the 90k+ commetns on that thread, and in that subreddit. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6er79/the_gme_afterhours_thread_part_420_on_27_january/gl2mbyj/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6er79/the_...
gsich 6y ago
What does Discord want to be? (Same goes for Facebook/Twitter ...) Moderated content because you are responsible for stuff that's being posted? Then go "censor" stuff all you want. Same rules for all. Open platform and not be responsible for content? (Similar to ISPs) Then everything should be allowed until a judge tells otherwise.
Jonnax 6y ago
It seems once a platform gets to a certain size, an entitlement to service regardless of whether it's against the terms of service grows. "Retard" is considered a slur by some. It doesn't matter if others don't consider it to be. The one making the judgement is the service provider. Same with Parlour complaining about being kicked off AWS when they violated their terms of service. There's a copy of the letter AWS sent to them that's public [0] " Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. {...} You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t “feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform.”" " It's just a desire to have freedom from consequences. If they self hosted in Alabama, I'm sure they would have been fine. [0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
gadders 6y ago
No, it's like a bunch of teenagers came into your coffee shop, and before you could throw them out your coffee shop [in a mall] was permanently closed down by the mall owners. //Been told I'm posting too fast again by the benevolent left wing moderators on HN so this is what I would have replied: "From the comment on WSB that was a story on here before it got flagged off the front page: "We blocked all bad words with a bot, which should be enough, but apparently if someone can say a bad word with weird unicode icelandic characters and someone can screenshot it you don't get to hang out with your friends anymore." In other words, they told the kids not to swear and enforced it but someone came up with a new swearword that the cafe owner didn't recognise (it's hard to think of an analogy for using weird characters to say a bad word) and so the cafe got shut down. "
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  No, it really isn't. At most, it is a mall telling a coffee shop owner that they need to take care of a small subset of regulars - the teenagers - because they are regularly using offensive speech. If they don't, the coffee shop is in violation of the malls' leasing agreement. Coffee shop does nothing, so they are evicted. It isn't like a place got shut down because they let the general public in.
  - njanirudh 6y ago
    Who is the mall? What if the mall suddenly decides that xyz religion, race is not allowed? Who controls the mall? so is majority views the only correct view?
yurielt 6y ago
>Comparing a coffeshop to a webpage and environment that is supposed to be about free speech and juvenile conversation
arkh 6y ago
It's more like a group of people open a coffee shop in your mall and you decide to close their shop once you learn they serve people who don't speak your language.
concordDance 6y ago
I don't think the metaphore holds. Everyone can hear the coffee shop kids regardless of whether they want to or not, but only those who seek it out can read the discord.
JacKTrocinskI 6y ago
That is exactly what censorship is, you don't like how they're acting or what they're saying so you censor them by kicking them out.
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y ago
  They seem to think that if it's not "censorship" then it can't be criticized, as if the word itself is magic. Discord did a thing and people don't like the thing Discord did. Now what?
ben509 6y ago
Of course you're censoring them. You would also be censoring people if you ran an upscale restaurant with a dress code and standards of behavior, or if you didn't let them post ads on the walls. As long as you make your rules clear and enforce them fairly, censorship and standards of behavior are completely fine. The very large social media platforms all market themselves as being neutral. They got to be the largest by providing a space for everyone. So the ask here is "please enforce the rules fairly the way you have always promised you would." Asking a business to deliver on the promises they've made and continue to make is not an entitled attitude. After all, all these businesses are in complete control of what they promise. If they don't like the old promise, they have a first amendment right to make a new promise that suits them better.
- Jonnax 6y ago
  Discord doesn't market themselves as being neutral and they have community guidelines: https://discord.com/guidelines https://discord.com/guidelines
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Anyone has community guidelines, i could write on my wall with a crayon "we get pissed at the pub on tuesday' and call that community guideline. It does not convey moral rights or place you above criticism What is that statement meant to convey?
    - Jonnax 6y ago
      I think you're confused. Their community guidelines are part of their terms of service. You can write whatever on your wall, it's your home, your community. If you want to use their service you have to follow their rules. Turns out that Discord doesn't like people using the terms "Retard" and "Autist" in a disparaging way. They don't want that kind of discourse to be part of their community. In the same way, I'm guessing that you're not going get far on this forum calling people "retards" If you want to have your own community where you want to have that kind of discourse, you can self host a forum. Instead of Discord consider IRC, it's an open standard, and anyone can host a server. You don't need AWS, you just need an internet connection. You just need to find a hosting provider that's willing to host it. Of which there are plenty.
skocznymroczny 6y ago
Your coffee shop is not relevant on the global scale. But with big platforms like Facebook, it's not easy to opt out from them. Facebook and other platforms aren't just social media for teenagers. Many companies nowadays only have a Facebook/Whatsapp profile as their only contact point. If you get banned from these services you miss out on accessing a wide share of services, not related to social media. Also, if you have people coming to your coffee shop and acting badly, people can judge it for themselves and form their own opinion. On the internet, bans are quiet and you can easily silence a large chunk of the userbase without making a noise. You may cheer these big platforms now because it's only "racists, white supremacists and crooks" being banned, but as soon as the first group of people you agree with gets blocked from these platforms you'll be the first one to fight for freedom of speech.
imtringued 6y ago
But you gave them private rooms where nobody else can hear them.
nix23 6y ago
And that's good, but you are a coffee shop and not a platform.
StreamBright 6y ago
This is not what happened here. Isnt reddit a public forum?
zo1 6y ago
Okay cool, let's invent a new term. How about: "Politically motivated minority persecution?" Maybe a bit too much. How about: "Social Engineering via Targeted Group Deplatforming?" Because that is how these look-like to me and to a lot of these "persecuted" groups. These groups aren't necessarily "hateful" or "organizing" violence. A lot of the time it's just distasteful, kinda sexist etc and the "platform" owners simply don't like them and want to keep them from growing because (I think) they think that there is a real fear that societal opinion might swing their way. However the missing key here is that a lot of times, these are genuine "political movements" before they've cooled & solidified, and exist solely as mis-directed or nebulous emotion, hence the "hateful" and distasteful content. Not all, but a good chunk of them of course. Sometimes you just get bad groups, but in a lot of those cases, I think it's more clear that they're doing something blatantly evil. For lack of a better example: coordinating and sharing info on how to sabotage deforestation using dangerous methods like putting nails inside trees, which would cause chainsaws to snap and hurt the operators.
RobRivera 6y ago
comparing retail investors who have voting power and economic influence over public markets to 'a bunch of teenagers' is a gross oversimplification

NotPavlovsDog 6y ago

And you need to review the code of conduct for this platform, as you are in violation and, according to your own logic, should be kicked. (Which I oppose)

staticelf 6y ago

It would only be a fair parable if your coffee shop was the only coffeshop in the entire city or that it exists like 1-3 others but you all talk with eachother on the phone and collectively agree to deny those people service.

onethought 6y ago
And that still wouldn’t be censorship.
- staticelf 6y ago
  No ofc not, but that is a coffeshop and not a place where the business is sharing stuff. If the business is a town square where everyone is and your excluding a specific group that is censorship.
  - onethought 6y ago
    But it’s more like a country club than a town square. And 100% country clubs kick you out when you say things they don’t like.
jsilence 6y ago
They are free to run their own Matrix, Mattermost, Rocketchat, IRC, whatever node...
- nix23 6y ago
  Mumble? Teamspeak? It's like everyone forgot the old battle-tested Warhorses.
  - ChainOfFools 6y ago
    I think IRC (which OP mentioned) outranks them all ifor the battle tested warhorse title
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      As if an IRC channel wouldn't be shut down if it threatened oligopoly profits...
      - jsilence 6y ago
        All of the big social media networks are corporate property. It is not a public space. So it is their house rules. And rightfully so. If you took their free cookie, choke on it, but don't complain.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        Wow, that's aggressive. All journalists, nearly all politicians, and lots of other people as well communicate largely on social networks owned by these giant amoral artificial creations. What does "public space" even mean anymore? Should we stand on the stroad median with the panhandlers? Would anyone even read our signs? It is possible for citizens to impose conditions on the existence of the corporations their elected government creates.
- staticelf 6y ago
  Except when people do create their own shit, like Parler, it immedietly gets shut down as soon as it gets popular.
Traster 6y ago
There are many coffee shops in the city and there are plenty of social media platforms online (Youtube, Facebook, Tiktok, Reddit, Twitter, Whatsapp, Telegram, Twitch, Pinterest, WeChat, Snapchat). Also, there's really no evidence they're coordinating. If the guys I kick out of my coffee shop walk down the road and start shouting Retard at each other in a different coffee shop they're going to get kicked out of that one too. Not because we're in some big cabal to censor these people, but because actually most people have a fairly similar definition of offensive language, and most coffee shop owners know what's going to drive customers away. At no point does that suddenly turn into censorship.
- staticelf 6y ago
  I disagree, it is censorship. We all know how hard it is to build a community. To just say go use another platform is really not a fair comparison. Discord and Reddit in this case, even if they're not banned from Reddit yet, is their only means of communicating with eachother. Sure people can create some kind of group / channel on another platform, but if they are banned from one there is no way for them to know where to go. Obviously the group is going to be mostly dispanded when they are banned or removed. I would say this is a kind of censorship. If they would've been given some time, like a week or a month before the banning then I would agree it would not be censorship because then they can assemble somewhere else.

ulucs 6y ago

Thousands of such online communities, and you only throw out the ones that threaten your hedge fund?

onethought 6y ago
That isn’t what censorship is. Nor is it a violation of free speech. The government didn’t get involved. Private companies and individuals can do what ever they like with their property, no?
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  Supposedly, until you criticize the idea of taking their money and giving it to everyone who claims to need it more than them. Arguments like these are all to often made out of convenience, but should be made in good faith and on principle. Do you truly believe in their right to private property?
  - onethought 6y ago
    I don’t get your point at all. Are you trying to argue some kind of Marxist position in order to show censorship can exist without government involvement. I’m happy to have a discussion on why capital owners probably stole their wealth at some point. But you need to take me on the journey to how that’s related to censorship
    - betwixthewires 6y ago
      My point is, this argument that "they're a private company" is great, and I 100% agree with it. But I usually find that people that make this argument don't actually believe that these companies have the right to their private property, they just use it because they're ideologically opposed to the people getting banned for whatever reason. They'll say that a private company has the right to it's property and then in the next breath call them evil for having a lot of property and demand that they get taxed out of existence.

betwixthewires 6y ago

This is a tired old argument and it isn't convincing or effective. There's a big difference between some kids screaming in your coffee shop and a community on a website supposedly dedicated to free discussion. A more apt comparison would be a group in a corner having a conversation at a rock concert. Suddenly this argument appears less apt. And while some are screaming for these sites to get shut down over it, most of us aren't. What you see from most of us is recommendation to stop using services that silence you. This is a reasonable response, if someone doesn't like you, go somewhere where they do like you. That's what the comment you're responding to is advocating, embracing and even getting excited about. The internet needs a true public square, not a private entity masquerading as one that for some reason totally unbeknownst to them has to constantly remind everyone that they are not a public square.

Jonnax 6y ago
Where does discord say it's for free discussion? In two clicks I found their community guidelines on their website: https://discord.com/guidelines https://discord.com/guidelines Second rule: "Do not organize, promote, or coordinate servers around hate speech. It’s unacceptable to attack a person or a community based on attributes such as their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or disabilities." Calling someone a "retard" or "autist" is considered by Discord to be mocking people with disabilities. Also IRC exists and is still in use by many people. Anyone can set up a server.
- namibj 6y ago
  It's messed up when there are auto-banning bots that hit those with disabilities for speaking out on the issues they face in everyday life.
  - maccard 6y ago
    Have you read the content on WSB? Here's a link that I found on the top of the top thread of the subreddit [0]. Let's be completely clear here, this isn't someone speaking out about issues they face in everyday life. > ive been folowing this saga since GME was 60 or so but sadly i was too afraid to become autistic, and have now gone full retard And this isn't an isolated comment, there are hundreds of comments like it in the 90k+ commetns on that thread, and in that subreddit. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6er79/the_gme_afterhours_thread_part_420_on_27_january/gl2mbyj/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6er79/the_...

gsich 6y ago

What does Discord want to be? (Same goes for Facebook/Twitter ...) Moderated content because you are responsible for stuff that's being posted? Then go "censor" stuff all you want. Same rules for all. Open platform and not be responsible for content? (Similar to ISPs) Then everything should be allowed until a judge tells otherwise.

Jonnax 6y ago

It seems once a platform gets to a certain size, an entitlement to service regardless of whether it's against the terms of service grows. "Retard" is considered a slur by some. It doesn't matter if others don't consider it to be. The one making the judgement is the service provider. Same with Parlour complaining about being kicked off AWS when they violated their terms of service. There's a copy of the letter AWS sent to them that's public [0] " Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. {...} You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t “feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform.”" " It's just a desire to have freedom from consequences. If they self hosted in Alabama, I'm sure they would have been fine. [0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...

gadders 6y ago

No, it's like a bunch of teenagers came into your coffee shop, and before you could throw them out your coffee shop [in a mall] was permanently closed down by the mall owners. //Been told I'm posting too fast again by the benevolent left wing moderators on HN so this is what I would have replied: "From the comment on WSB that was a story on here before it got flagged off the front page: "We blocked all bad words with a bot, which should be enough, but apparently if someone can say a bad word with weird unicode icelandic characters and someone can screenshot it you don't get to hang out with your friends anymore." In other words, they told the kids not to swear and enforced it but someone came up with a new swearword that the cafe owner didn't recognise (it's hard to think of an analogy for using weird characters to say a bad word) and so the cafe got shut down. "

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
No, it really isn't. At most, it is a mall telling a coffee shop owner that they need to take care of a small subset of regulars - the teenagers - because they are regularly using offensive speech. If they don't, the coffee shop is in violation of the malls' leasing agreement. Coffee shop does nothing, so they are evicted. It isn't like a place got shut down because they let the general public in.
- njanirudh 6y ago
  Who is the mall? What if the mall suddenly decides that xyz religion, race is not allowed? Who controls the mall? so is majority views the only correct view?

yurielt 6y ago

>Comparing a coffeshop to a webpage and environment that is supposed to be about free speech and juvenile conversation

arkh 6y ago

It's more like a group of people open a coffee shop in your mall and you decide to close their shop once you learn they serve people who don't speak your language.

concordDance 6y ago

I don't think the metaphore holds. Everyone can hear the coffee shop kids regardless of whether they want to or not, but only those who seek it out can read the discord.

JacKTrocinskI 6y ago

That is exactly what censorship is, you don't like how they're acting or what they're saying so you censor them by kicking them out.

ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y ago
They seem to think that if it's not "censorship" then it can't be criticized, as if the word itself is magic. Discord did a thing and people don't like the thing Discord did. Now what?

ben509 6y ago

Of course you're censoring them. You would also be censoring people if you ran an upscale restaurant with a dress code and standards of behavior, or if you didn't let them post ads on the walls. As long as you make your rules clear and enforce them fairly, censorship and standards of behavior are completely fine. The very large social media platforms all market themselves as being neutral. They got to be the largest by providing a space for everyone. So the ask here is "please enforce the rules fairly the way you have always promised you would." Asking a business to deliver on the promises they've made and continue to make is not an entitled attitude. After all, all these businesses are in complete control of what they promise. If they don't like the old promise, they have a first amendment right to make a new promise that suits them better.

Jonnax 6y ago
Discord doesn't market themselves as being neutral and they have community guidelines: https://discord.com/guidelines https://discord.com/guidelines
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Anyone has community guidelines, i could write on my wall with a crayon "we get pissed at the pub on tuesday' and call that community guideline. It does not convey moral rights or place you above criticism What is that statement meant to convey?
  - Jonnax 6y ago
    I think you're confused. Their community guidelines are part of their terms of service. You can write whatever on your wall, it's your home, your community. If you want to use their service you have to follow their rules. Turns out that Discord doesn't like people using the terms "Retard" and "Autist" in a disparaging way. They don't want that kind of discourse to be part of their community. In the same way, I'm guessing that you're not going get far on this forum calling people "retards" If you want to have your own community where you want to have that kind of discourse, you can self host a forum. Instead of Discord consider IRC, it's an open standard, and anyone can host a server. You don't need AWS, you just need an internet connection. You just need to find a hosting provider that's willing to host it. Of which there are plenty.

skocznymroczny 6y ago

Your coffee shop is not relevant on the global scale. But with big platforms like Facebook, it's not easy to opt out from them. Facebook and other platforms aren't just social media for teenagers. Many companies nowadays only have a Facebook/Whatsapp profile as their only contact point. If you get banned from these services you miss out on accessing a wide share of services, not related to social media. Also, if you have people coming to your coffee shop and acting badly, people can judge it for themselves and form their own opinion. On the internet, bans are quiet and you can easily silence a large chunk of the userbase without making a noise. You may cheer these big platforms now because it's only "racists, white supremacists and crooks" being banned, but as soon as the first group of people you agree with gets blocked from these platforms you'll be the first one to fight for freedom of speech.

imtringued 6y ago

But you gave them private rooms where nobody else can hear them.

nix23 6y ago

And that's good, but you are a coffee shop and not a platform.

StreamBright 6y ago

This is not what happened here. Isnt reddit a public forum?

zo1 6y ago

Okay cool, let's invent a new term. How about: "Politically motivated minority persecution?" Maybe a bit too much. How about: "Social Engineering via Targeted Group Deplatforming?" Because that is how these look-like to me and to a lot of these "persecuted" groups. These groups aren't necessarily "hateful" or "organizing" violence. A lot of the time it's just distasteful, kinda sexist etc and the "platform" owners simply don't like them and want to keep them from growing because (I think) they think that there is a real fear that societal opinion might swing their way. However the missing key here is that a lot of times, these are genuine "political movements" before they've cooled & solidified, and exist solely as mis-directed or nebulous emotion, hence the "hateful" and distasteful content. Not all, but a good chunk of them of course. Sometimes you just get bad groups, but in a lot of those cases, I think it's more clear that they're doing something blatantly evil. For lack of a better example: coordinating and sharing info on how to sabotage deforestation using dangerous methods like putting nails inside trees, which would cause chainsaws to snap and hurt the operators.

RobRivera 6y ago

comparing retail investors who have voting power and economic influence over public markets to 'a bunch of teenagers' is a gross oversimplification