3 ms·
> and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior). This “passive endorsing” is a great social construct! It allows anybody to go after TMobile for p
by MikePlacid 4y ago
> and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior).
This “passive endorsing” is a great social construct! It allows anybody to go after TMobile for passively endorsing all the lies I said to pretty women over the phone.
- tempestn 4y agoThat seems like a bit of a strawman. There's a pretty significant difference between public and private speech. Regardless, I'm not arguing what or when these platforms should censor. Just trying to explain why certain content on a platform could cause someone to choose to stop using that platform, even if they're not personally exposed to that content.
- MikePlacid 4y ago> Just trying to explain why certain content on a platform could cause someone to choose to stop using that platform, even if they're not personally exposed to that content. This explanation seems pretty strange to me. 1. If I am not exposed to some content - how do I know that it exist? 2. If I see that platform does not delete an objectionable content and does not force me to contact it - I would feel much safer in re that my non-objectionable would not be deleted too.
- tempestn 4y agoI'm not sure why you would be concerned that your non-objectionable content would be deleted regardless. Either way, it sounds like you put greater value in freedom of speech, whereas others put greater value in condemning speech they find harmful. I can see how reasonable people could have differing priorities there.
- lupire 4y agoBad Twitter content spreads to infest mainstream media. Bad social media content led to an attack on the Capitol to overthrow the government.