3 ms·
Fair enough, but if that's your stance, I hope you're honest and open about it. I am not claiming you personally have done this, but so many people immediately
by colpabar 5y ago
Fair enough, but if that's your stance, I hope you're honest and open about it. I am not claiming you personally have done this, but so many people immediately jump on the private company defense when someone they dislike is deplatformed, when they really just don't like that person and are glad it happened.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI think the main problem is that many people fail to distinguish actions that are bad, and actions the government should prevent. There is a big difference between saying "This is bad and this company should stop doing it" and "This is bad and the government should step in". This is made worse, because most people don't even bother to propose a solution and just say "this is bad!" leaving others to fight over the implications of the incomplete thought.
- colpabar 5y agoI disagree, I think the main problem is that people use the private company argument as a way to mask their emotion-based reasons for wanting someone deplatformed. My brain translates "it's a private company" into "we should not question the actions of private companies" because they're effectively the same. I'd much rather people just say "this is bad" than hide behind some bs free market argument.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI agree that being private company is a bad defense for a moral attack, because it 1) it is morally irrelevant, and 2) it goes both ways, allowing freedom to censor or not censor. My point is rather that most people don't even bother making a coherent criticism. "This is bad and I think they should update their policy" is a vastly more constructive position than "this is bad"