4 ms·

>His goals are good: focusing on the 80% bandwidth of free speech, but getting there for sure is going to be tricky. This has to be by far the biggest risk fact

by RC_ITR 4y ago

>His goals are good: focusing on the 80% bandwidth of free speech, but getting there for sure is going to be tricky. This has to be by far the biggest risk factor. What I think will be the real litmus test is Azealia Banks, whose account currently remains suspended [0] She was banned for allegedly transphobic tweets [1] which were political speech by any reasonable definition (she was banned because the way she said it, not the content of the idea). Why I don't think she'll be allowed back is because she has a personal relationship with Musk/Grimes where she sends that same kind of hate their way. But like I said, interesting litmus test. [0]https://twitter.com/Azealiaishere https://twitter.com/Azealiaishere [1]https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/10/14/azealia-banks-suspended-twitter-transphobia-gender-affirmation-surgery-covid-farmers-trump/ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/10/14/azealia-banks-suspende...

fleddr 4y ago
The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. I think the real litmus test is a possible Trump unban. That's would be earth shattering.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It's hard to imagine the Trump ban staying given what he was actually banned for. I'm not a Trumper but he tweeted: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Twitter interpreted this to be an incitement for terrorist attack on the inauguration and banned him, the sitting president of the US, for that. It is hard to imagine any platform with a semblance of free speech stand behind that kind of logic. If you are willing to read into statements that deeply, any speech is bannable. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
  - freejazz 4y ago
    That's pretty much entirely devoid of the context of everything else he tweeted and the rest of his actions and you can pretend that none of that matters but it obviously does.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      here is the context for the rest of his tweets: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results. Maybe that should be a bannable offense, but that isn't what they did.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        "He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results" And ginning up the capital mob.... but keep ignoring the context.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Like I said, I dont like Trump, but didn't and dont read it that way. I think it is absolutely a situation where peoples priors are feeding into the conclusions they come to. What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. Trump was so divisive and loaded that some people come to conclusions completely independent of his actions statements. When he said the quote below [1], some people argued that he was encouraging violence, and it should be read with some kind of reverse meaning. My point is not to debate the actual intent, but illustrate that once you reach this level of interpretation and distrust, there is really no rational common ground for debate or analysis. Anyone can claim anything and there is no substance. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
        crazygringo 4y ago
        > What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. There has been an entire set of Congressional hearings, with extensive testimony from the people surrounding him, to answer precisely which of those was the case. The evidence conclusively points to the former, there's really no question at this point. This isn't a matter of opinion anymore or "agree to disagree" -- it's just overwhelming facts, based on undisputed testimony, now.
- grecy 4y ago
  > The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. While that might sadly be true in some countries, please know there are many where people are perfectly happy to let people be whoever they want to be. It does not have to be aggressive.
  - qull 4y ago
    The issue is less what is being said, but how it is being said, by either side. Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are.
    - grecy 4y ago
      > Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are. The side that is attempting to stop people being who they want to be is correct?

by RC_ITR 4y ago

fleddr 4y ago

The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. I think the real litmus test is a possible Trump unban. That's would be earth shattering.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
It's hard to imagine the Trump ban staying given what he was actually banned for. I'm not a Trumper but he tweeted: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Twitter interpreted this to be an incitement for terrorist attack on the inauguration and banned him, the sitting president of the US, for that. It is hard to imagine any platform with a semblance of free speech stand behind that kind of logic. If you are willing to read into statements that deeply, any speech is bannable. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- freejazz 4y ago
  That's pretty much entirely devoid of the context of everything else he tweeted and the rest of his actions and you can pretend that none of that matters but it obviously does.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    here is the context for the rest of his tweets: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results. Maybe that should be a bannable offense, but that isn't what they did.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      "He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results" And ginning up the capital mob.... but keep ignoring the context.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Like I said, I dont like Trump, but didn't and dont read it that way. I think it is absolutely a situation where peoples priors are feeding into the conclusions they come to. What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. Trump was so divisive and loaded that some people come to conclusions completely independent of his actions statements. When he said the quote below [1], some people argued that he was encouraging violence, and it should be read with some kind of reverse meaning. My point is not to debate the actual intent, but illustrate that once you reach this level of interpretation and distrust, there is really no rational common ground for debate or analysis. Anyone can claim anything and there is no substance. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
        crazygringo 4y ago
        > What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. There has been an entire set of Congressional hearings, with extensive testimony from the people surrounding him, to answer precisely which of those was the case. The evidence conclusively points to the former, there's really no question at this point. This isn't a matter of opinion anymore or "agree to disagree" -- it's just overwhelming facts, based on undisputed testimony, now.
grecy 4y ago
> The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. While that might sadly be true in some countries, please know there are many where people are perfectly happy to let people be whoever they want to be. It does not have to be aggressive.
- qull 4y ago
  The issue is less what is being said, but how it is being said, by either side. Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are.
  - grecy 4y ago
    > Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are. The side that is attempting to stop people being who they want to be is correct?