3 ms·

I'm gonna try to answer your questions in order. - usually they have alts, you can send them a message to please update their twitter bio with the link to thei

• oldandboring 4y ago
  > Even though i don't appreciate your dismissal of a very real problem Conservative content producers literally and demonstrably dominate shared content on Facebook and Twitter. And if all your follows are conservative, these viewpoints are all you'll see. What warrants takedowns, shadowbans, and permabans is hate speech, incitement of violent, harassment and spam/platform manipulation. While I'm not saying the platforms do a perfect job, it's undeniably their goal to keep those elements off the site while otherwise allowing you to say what you want to whoever will listen. If you're conservative, you are free to go on these platforms and call Biden an idiot or whatever. But when you start spreading dangerous misinformation or inciting political violence, all bets are off. I can't tell what's more frightening: the possibility that the people claiming they've been unfairly censored actually WANT the freedom to make hate speech or incite violence on a privately run platform, or that they truly think what they're doing is just fine.
  • SLWW 4y ago
    I've read through your contradictions, and those like it, for years; it's exhausting and i wish you all would grow up and cast off this rhetoric. They do not "literally and demonstrably" dominated shared content. What rock have you been under? If you see one or two conservative commentators that have really good lawyers, that is not "dominating" that is those who have money, using it to threaten lawsuits against companies like YouTube and Facebook. If my viewpoint contains "misinformation" (that i don't know about), who's to say that you viewpoint doesn't also without you knowing it? Who's to say what's dangerous, or how wrong does someone need to be before it's considered dangerous? We have the agency to protect ourselves, we are adults. If "dangerous misinformation" destroys western civilization, then it should not have existed in the first place. This is the basis for Darwinian Evolution, the weak fall, the strong survive. Hate speech is not a legal standard here in the US; which is great, because what was hate speech two years ago is not what it is today, and I'm worried it will just continue to grow, it is not a standard i recognize or will ever recognize. If those who held your opinion didn't push so hard and use "hate speech" as a weapon to silence opposition; while turning around and telling people that they should kill themselves because they are "scum" (calling people scum and telling them they shouldn't exist sounds pretty hateful to me). When i was in college I remember getting screamed at by a worthless human being who said that I wasn't allowed to be there or speak (even though i was just trying to get to my class) because I wasn't black; ironically, neither was she, i had no intention of speaking or loitering, I WAS WALKING, and she nearly got decked (as she wouldn't stop touching me). Any how, that's off topic, but it's a pretty perfect picture of what those who actually believe "hate speech" gives them the right to silence others implicitly allows, extending to those who might oppose them in any way real or imaginary. I'm a fairly reasonable person, I don't like the government, and i dislike too much change too quickly, i like the tried and true method. I prefer my freedom, and i prefer people to have the freedom to say what they want and do what they want as long as it's not causing direct physical damage to others. I don't like how "we" have decided that any voice against any commonly accepted behavior is considered hate. I don't hate gay people, I don't share in their proclivities, but I really don't mind them, but I really don't appreciate the parading in SF that they often engage in, for example. I believe those demonstrations to be obscene; if you did the things they do by yourself, with one other person, you would be arrested for indecent exposure and lewd acts in most civilized societies. This statement, I've been told, though i think it's reasonable, is "hate speech". Just because i don't want my 8 year old niece to see grown men in bondage gear doing some weird things with strangers outside in broad daylight, I'm "hateful". This is how absurd it's getting. If that is "hate speech" then i will more than happily accept that title, which means nothing. We are no longer children, most of us are grown adults who should be able to withstand "dangerous misinformation" and political violence was never legal to begin with. If i scream fire, but there is none, in a crowded building, that isn't protected speech as I'm inciting panic, which can do harm. If i tell you that you should kill the president (which i am definitely not) that is not protected either. Free speech is hate speech, wholesome speech, disagreeable speech, agreeable speech; the law even extends to non-verbal expressions of ideas! Any attempt to silence opposition indicates that the thing you are trying to protect does not stand on it's own, ideas should stand on their own; "hate speech" (not the idea, what it actually is) is necessary as anyone when opposed can and often will see that as "hate speech". Most people want to be able to say what they believe, even if a soulless corporation deems it "bad"; most don't want to incite violence (which is unilaterally illegal) and only a small minority actually make "hate speech" (in it's truest origin), which is subjective in nature and only really a fairly "recent" cultural phenomena. I've written at length, though as per usual, it won't make a difference :)