3 ms·
It's advocacy. People want to remove the influence the owner has on public discourse. Advocacy, like strike action does things which have short term pain becaus
by ggm 2y ago
It's advocacy. People want to remove the influence the owner has on public discourse. Advocacy, like strike action does things which have short term pain because of a belief in a goal.
Also, we implicitly make these choices all the time, by not listening to Fox, or Pravda, or Al Jazeera or a host of channels, by chosing not to pay, not to bypass the pay wall.
I do not disagree that it seems extreme. It's dichotomous behaviour to me. But, it's human, and normal. I don't personally think everyone who remains on X is evil or against my world view. I just find I'm happier off it and ignoring it.
(I'm sure you know this. I'm not trying to school you, we're just making observations from different sides of the fence but the fence is there and we're in agreement about that if nothing else)
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago> "People want to remove the influence the owner has on public discourse." Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution, strengthening them. And now that the leftists are on the back foot, deplatforming is going to be even less effective. It's just doubling down on a losing strategy. That being said, I'm all in favor of blocking X links as HN submissions anyway. They almost always seem to be off topic or low value.
- soundnote 2y ago> Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution Is it delusion anymore if you're systematically barred from everywhere? The Twitter Files also exist, showing active government-driven censorship efforts.