5 ms·

Well, but you’re wrong. > Facebook has been suspending women for “hate speech” against men after posting variations of the phrase “men are scum”. https://www.

Well, but you’re wrong. > Facebook has been suspending women for “hate speech” against men after posting variations of the phrase “men are scum”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/05/facebook-bans-women-posting-men-are-scum-harassment-scandals-comedian-marcia-belsky-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/05/facebook-...

busymom0 5y ago
Canadian Lindsey Shepherd and Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy are examples of a woman being banned from Twitter for speaking out against "trans". Lindsey Shepherd was having some health issues related to her reproductive health to which Yaniv (who's a pedo but now identifies as trans) tweeted: > “at least my pussy is tight and not loose after pushing out a 10 pound baby.” Shepherd tweeted in response: > “This is how men who don’t have functional romantic relationships speak. But… I guess that’s kinda what you are!” Yaniv then responded with a comment that could have been in reference to Shepherd’s septate uterus, a reproductive condition that can cause higher rates of pregnancy loss: > “I heard @realDonaldTrump is building a wall inside of your uterus aka your ‘reproductive abnormality’ hopefully the walk works as intended,” Yaniv tweeted. Shepherd then said: > “At least I have a uterus, you fat ugly man, Of course, he thinks reproductive issues are something to be mocked.” This got Lindsey banned. I don't think any reasonable person would be okay with this standard. Similarly Meghan Murphy was banned for “men aren’t women.” https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd-on-her-twitter-ban-your-instincts-should-not-be-to-celebrate https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-s... Twitter and other Big Tech have built a victimhood hierarchy where based on how many oppression points you have based on your racial, sexual, identification etc, you have more power over others below you. If you are a white man, twitter gives you less oppression points than a white woman. But if you simply identify as trans, then you have more oppression points than the same white woman. The censorship debate always reminds me of the 2000s after 9/11 where anyone who opposed going to war in multiple foreign countries which had nothing to do with 9/11 were labelled "terrorist sympathizers". Taking advantage of this, they also passed a mass spying bill - the Patriot Act. Stating "man cannot be a woman" or "men shouldn't compete in women's sports" is considered transphobic in current climate. Regardless of which side of the Palestine-Israel conflict you fall one, either or both sides can be censored by labelling it as "anti-semitic" or "islamaphobic". Speaking out against the Patriot Act and forever wars would be (and was) labelled "unpatriotic" and "terrorist sympathizer" and censored. Speaking out against healthy living would be labelled "fat phobic". Or the opposite could also happen. All the groups which speak out against fat shaming could also get censored because it's dangerous to public health. The government and big tech would start censoring you for advertising soft drinks/chips and other junk food. Since all religions oppose gay marriage, when super religious are in power, they would censor LGBT content. Pro-choice would get censored for religious reasons and Pro-life would be censored for racism/dangerous or other reasons. Add to this, the absolute contradiction of their terms of service (as well as the Canadian Bill C-16) where it aims to stop discrimination against religion while also stopping discrimination against LGBT. Every religion from Hinduism to Islam to Christianity is against LGBT, abortion etc. How they plan on maintaining any neutrality is beyond me. And lord forbid when the pendulum swings in other direction and you get some super religious person in power. The only way to stop all this is to have absolute freedom of speech on tech platforms which should be classified as common carriers. We already have plenty of laws to take care of any immediate actions taken as a result of your speech.
13years 5y ago
The problem is none of this ever appears impartial even if we assume they are trying. One person can say exactly the same thing as another and only one of them is banned. So judgement is not applied equally. It is the same issue across all social media. We never elected them to be our moral arbiters.

busymom0 5y ago

Canadian Lindsey Shepherd and Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy are examples of a woman being banned from Twitter for speaking out against "trans". Lindsey Shepherd was having some health issues related to her reproductive health to which Yaniv (who's a pedo but now identifies as trans) tweeted: > “at least my pussy is tight and not loose after pushing out a 10 pound baby.” Shepherd tweeted in response: > “This is how men who don’t have functional romantic relationships speak. But… I guess that’s kinda what you are!” Yaniv then responded with a comment that could have been in reference to Shepherd’s septate uterus, a reproductive condition that can cause higher rates of pregnancy loss: > “I heard @realDonaldTrump is building a wall inside of your uterus aka your ‘reproductive abnormality’ hopefully the walk works as intended,” Yaniv tweeted. Shepherd then said: > “At least I have a uterus, you fat ugly man, Of course, he thinks reproductive issues are something to be mocked.” This got Lindsey banned. I don't think any reasonable person would be okay with this standard. Similarly Meghan Murphy was banned for “men aren’t women.” https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd-on-her-twitter-ban-your-instincts-should-not-be-to-celebrate https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-s... Twitter and other Big Tech have built a victimhood hierarchy where based on how many oppression points you have based on your racial, sexual, identification etc, you have more power over others below you. If you are a white man, twitter gives you less oppression points than a white woman. But if you simply identify as trans, then you have more oppression points than the same white woman. The censorship debate always reminds me of the 2000s after 9/11 where anyone who opposed going to war in multiple foreign countries which had nothing to do with 9/11 were labelled "terrorist sympathizers". Taking advantage of this, they also passed a mass spying bill - the Patriot Act. Stating "man cannot be a woman" or "men shouldn't compete in women's sports" is considered transphobic in current climate. Regardless of which side of the Palestine-Israel conflict you fall one, either or both sides can be censored by labelling it as "anti-semitic" or "islamaphobic". Speaking out against the Patriot Act and forever wars would be (and was) labelled "unpatriotic" and "terrorist sympathizer" and censored. Speaking out against healthy living would be labelled "fat phobic". Or the opposite could also happen. All the groups which speak out against fat shaming could also get censored because it's dangerous to public health. The government and big tech would start censoring you for advertising soft drinks/chips and other junk food. Since all religions oppose gay marriage, when super religious are in power, they would censor LGBT content. Pro-choice would get censored for religious reasons and Pro-life would be censored for racism/dangerous or other reasons. Add to this, the absolute contradiction of their terms of service (as well as the Canadian Bill C-16) where it aims to stop discrimination against religion while also stopping discrimination against LGBT. Every religion from Hinduism to Islam to Christianity is against LGBT, abortion etc. How they plan on maintaining any neutrality is beyond me. And lord forbid when the pendulum swings in other direction and you get some super religious person in power. The only way to stop all this is to have absolute freedom of speech on tech platforms which should be classified as common carriers. We already have plenty of laws to take care of any immediate actions taken as a result of your speech.

13years 5y ago

The problem is none of this ever appears impartial even if we assume they are trying. One person can say exactly the same thing as another and only one of them is banned. So judgement is not applied equally. It is the same issue across all social media. We never elected them to be our moral arbiters.