4 ms·

1. neonazi and antisemitic are very much not the same 2. they have been changed to aid a neo nazi (or whatever that person is) It doesn't say "in an antisemit

by franga2000 3y ago

1. neonazi and antisemitic are very much not the same 2. they have been changed to aid a neo nazi (or whatever that person is) It doesn't say "in an antisemitic move, Twitter changes policy", nor "Twitter changes policy to benefit neonazis". It just asserts that this policy was created in order to benefit this one neonazi, which seems to have been exactly the case.

ImJamal 3y ago
>neonazi and antisemitic are very much not the same The title refers to antisemitic content and the article talks about a neonazi. The article is clearly linking the two. Not to mention, every neonazi is antisemitic. Throughout the article it switches between antisemitism and neonazism. You are just being pedantic. >they have been changed to aid a neo nazi (or whatever that person is) Perhaps, but it is the correct move so long as it is applied consistently. I would say a neonazi getting doxed is also quite dangerous since the phrase punch a Nazi is quite accepted. I don't recall the last time initiating an attack was considered a good thing. If the phrase, punch a black person was considered to be a moral imperative then Twitter changing their policies if a black person was doxed would be a good thing. [I'm not trying to say Nazis and blacks are equivalent, I'm just using an example to show protecting a person who quite possibly is going to attacked is good] >It doesn't say "in an antisemitic move, Twitter changes policy", nor "Twitter changes policy to benefit neonazis". It just asserts that this policy was created in order to benefit this one neonazi, which seems to have been exactly the case. For all intents and purposes ot says the policy is to benefit neonazis even if it doesn't use the exact phrase. Here is an example: >The policy change added to what some X users and critics have said is a growing list of examples of Musk going out of his way to defend neo-Nazis, antisemites and white supremacists.

ImJamal 3y ago

>neonazi and antisemitic are very much not the same The title refers to antisemitic content and the article talks about a neonazi. The article is clearly linking the two. Not to mention, every neonazi is antisemitic. Throughout the article it switches between antisemitism and neonazism. You are just being pedantic. >they have been changed to aid a neo nazi (or whatever that person is) Perhaps, but it is the correct move so long as it is applied consistently. I would say a neonazi getting doxed is also quite dangerous since the phrase punch a Nazi is quite accepted. I don't recall the last time initiating an attack was considered a good thing. If the phrase, punch a black person was considered to be a moral imperative then Twitter changing their policies if a black person was doxed would be a good thing. [I'm not trying to say Nazis and blacks are equivalent, I'm just using an example to show protecting a person who quite possibly is going to attacked is good] >It doesn't say "in an antisemitic move, Twitter changes policy", nor "Twitter changes policy to benefit neonazis". It just asserts that this policy was created in order to benefit this one neonazi, which seems to have been exactly the case. For all intents and purposes ot says the policy is to benefit neonazis even if it doesn't use the exact phrase. Here is an example: >The policy change added to what some X users and critics have said is a growing list of examples of Musk going out of his way to defend neo-Nazis, antisemites and white supremacists.