3 ms·
> More permissive perhaps, but not by much I don't understand this perspective. The Babylon Bee was banned for misgendering someone. It looks like they would n
by nomel 4y ago
> More permissive perhaps, but not by much
I don't understand this perspective. The Babylon Bee was banned for misgendering someone. It looks like they would not be banned under the new policy. That is an extreme difference.
- blitzar 4y ago"We're told our account will be restored in 12 hours, but the countdown won't begin until we delete the tweet that violates the Twitter Rules." They opted out by not deleting the tweet. Under the new policy the tweet would just not really appear with or without the consent of the user. "We're not deleting anything. Truth is not hate speech. If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it."
- nomel 4y ago> They opted out by not deleting the tweet. This is misleading. They were banned for the tweet. They opted out of removing the tweet, which would lift the ban. In the new policy, they would not be banned for the tweet. The fact that they were banned in the old policy, and would not be banned in the new policy, is irrefutable proof that the policies are very different, which means, by definition, it's not "status quo": status quo: the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.