5 ms·

For the same reasons Khamenei can tweet that an entire country is a malign tumor and needs to be removed and eradicated and Twitter is still in the stores. For

For the same reasons Khamenei can tweet that an entire country is a malign tumor and needs to be removed and eradicated and Twitter is still in the stores. For the same reasons silly places like Parler get nuked on Jan 6th pretenses when most of the planning happened on Facebook but Facebook's still there. Power's power, and Lenin's question of who/whom is always relevant.

notsuoh 6y ago
Partially a percentage of badness fits into the equation too, though. It's not as reducible as you're implying. Facebook, as much as I dislike it, is mostly people sharing memes and life updates with some terrorist planning that is to some extent actively hunted and removed. Parlor is the opposite, except that the conspiracies are encouraged, and indeed the company was built on this philosophy. Surely this is a relevant distinction?
- soundnote 6y ago
  It depends in part on what you consider to be fact. Part of the problem of the modern day is that the two tribes have in parts wildly diverging views on reality (and by my estimate both believe in some very nonsensical things), and the mainstream outlets very much encourage leftist brands of nonsense. The other issue is that if the mainstream thing bans certain things, any free speech alternative will be excessively populated by the witches the mainstream platform hunted. This is inevitable especially if the platform is convenient enough to be competitive. Which is a little tragic since a bunch of the banned people don't get banned just for politically dissenting thought but just plain awful behavior even by other standards. Regardless, it's inevitable, so painting alt platforms as hives of scum and villainy and thus cutting them down being justified more or less ensures that alt platforms won't come to exist in a relevant way. The fringe spaces will only get less silly if they're allowed to live and we can talk to people. Being able to talk with civilized people doesn't cure political disagreement or argument, but it lets you see the human on the other side of the nickname. I actively hunt interesting people across the political landscape to follow for that reason. Besides, I'm likely to learn something I otherwise wouldn't have from someone reasoned that I disagree with. People with shared politics only go so far. But people also need comfortable base camps from which to explore.
  - scns 6y ago
    "If you can cultivate the right attitude, your enemies are your best spiritual teachers because their presence provides you with the opportunity to enhance and develop your tolerance, patience and understanding." - Buddha
nine_k 6y ago
Twitter can ban a US president but not an Iran president? I think it's not about just formal power, but also about political affiliation.
- justinclift 6y ago
  And/or maybe the context of each banning matters? :)
  - nine_k 6y ago
    It should not, if users are banned for violating written rules.
    - justinclift 6y ago
      The world isn't always black and white though, thus things like this. ;)
      - orestarod 6y ago
        It is not, but hypocrisy and double standards are things you can't go wrong pointing out when you see them.
- thescriptkiddie 6y ago
  Twitter did not ban Trump until his term was nearly over and public opinion was firmly against him. That's like coming out against the Vietnam war during the evacuation of Saigon.

notsuoh 6y ago

Partially a percentage of badness fits into the equation too, though. It's not as reducible as you're implying. Facebook, as much as I dislike it, is mostly people sharing memes and life updates with some terrorist planning that is to some extent actively hunted and removed. Parlor is the opposite, except that the conspiracies are encouraged, and indeed the company was built on this philosophy. Surely this is a relevant distinction?

soundnote 6y ago
It depends in part on what you consider to be fact. Part of the problem of the modern day is that the two tribes have in parts wildly diverging views on reality (and by my estimate both believe in some very nonsensical things), and the mainstream outlets very much encourage leftist brands of nonsense. The other issue is that if the mainstream thing bans certain things, any free speech alternative will be excessively populated by the witches the mainstream platform hunted. This is inevitable especially if the platform is convenient enough to be competitive. Which is a little tragic since a bunch of the banned people don't get banned just for politically dissenting thought but just plain awful behavior even by other standards. Regardless, it's inevitable, so painting alt platforms as hives of scum and villainy and thus cutting them down being justified more or less ensures that alt platforms won't come to exist in a relevant way. The fringe spaces will only get less silly if they're allowed to live and we can talk to people. Being able to talk with civilized people doesn't cure political disagreement or argument, but it lets you see the human on the other side of the nickname. I actively hunt interesting people across the political landscape to follow for that reason. Besides, I'm likely to learn something I otherwise wouldn't have from someone reasoned that I disagree with. People with shared politics only go so far. But people also need comfortable base camps from which to explore.
- scns 6y ago
  "If you can cultivate the right attitude, your enemies are your best spiritual teachers because their presence provides you with the opportunity to enhance and develop your tolerance, patience and understanding." - Buddha

nine_k 6y ago

Twitter can ban a US president but not an Iran president? I think it's not about just formal power, but also about political affiliation.

justinclift 6y ago
And/or maybe the context of each banning matters? :)
- nine_k 6y ago
  It should not, if users are banned for violating written rules.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    The world isn't always black and white though, thus things like this. ;)
    - orestarod 6y ago
      It is not, but hypocrisy and double standards are things you can't go wrong pointing out when you see them.
thescriptkiddie 6y ago
Twitter did not ban Trump until his term was nearly over and public opinion was firmly against him. That's like coming out against the Vietnam war during the evacuation of Saigon.