3 ms·

I think there is a distinct difference between deplatforming content, and simply not monetizing it. You have the right to shout in the town square but I do not

I think there is a distinct difference between deplatforming content, and simply not monetizing it. You have the right to shout in the town square but I do not have to put money in your cup when you do it.

holbrad 2mo ago
I think that's an incredibly dangerous slippery slope. If you effectively control what is monetised, you effectively control what is said en masse. It's a distinction without a difference.
- expedition32 2mo ago
  I have no problem with deplatforming American, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence assets. Sadly we are finding out that our way of life is under threat 24/7 by nefarious barbarians.
  - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
    bring back the iron curtain. cut the undersea cables.
- bobthepanda 2mo ago
  I think we’ve only got here because social platforms are large and also own advertising auction platforms. I wonder how it would look like as a new antitrust vertical slice to enforce against. Plus you can always self host content and set up your own monetizing partners.
scarab92 2mo ago
I find those advocating for censorship of right wing voices to be pretty unconvincing, and often acting in bad faith (like this article and its cherry picking) Reddit and Blue Sky are almost entirely left-wing rage-bait and conspiracy theory content these days, and they amplify such content right to the top of the default feed, yet you rarely see the right calling for these platforms to censor their users. If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive, then it’s reasonable to expect the left to do so as well, without resorting to these contrived cancel culture talking points. The vast majority of political violence and riots in the US these days is orchestrated by left-wing movements and individuals. The assassinations of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk the attempts on Trump, all the riots surrounding BLM and George Floyd etc Obviously directly inciting violence is not acceptable, but cherry picking obscure instances of it, while simultaneously overlooking the far larger problems that exist on the left, is bad faith. The threads celebrating the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk are some of the most shared Reddit posts of all time, with zero self-reflection from the left about this double standard.
- tremon 2mo ago
  > If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive Ah look, it's the hallmark of well-reasoned thinking. I have seen this exact phrasing numerous times over the past week, did the bots learn a new talking point? "The right" sure is doing a lot of tolerating around abortion, trans identities and women's bathrooms and sports.

holbrad 2mo ago

I think that's an incredibly dangerous slippery slope. If you effectively control what is monetised, you effectively control what is said en masse. It's a distinction without a difference.

expedition32 2mo ago
I have no problem with deplatforming American, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence assets. Sadly we are finding out that our way of life is under threat 24/7 by nefarious barbarians.
- red-iron-pine 2mo ago
  bring back the iron curtain. cut the undersea cables.
bobthepanda 2mo ago
I think we’ve only got here because social platforms are large and also own advertising auction platforms. I wonder how it would look like as a new antitrust vertical slice to enforce against. Plus you can always self host content and set up your own monetizing partners.

scarab92 2mo ago

I find those advocating for censorship of right wing voices to be pretty unconvincing, and often acting in bad faith (like this article and its cherry picking) Reddit and Blue Sky are almost entirely left-wing rage-bait and conspiracy theory content these days, and they amplify such content right to the top of the default feed, yet you rarely see the right calling for these platforms to censor their users. If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive, then it’s reasonable to expect the left to do so as well, without resorting to these contrived cancel culture talking points. The vast majority of political violence and riots in the US these days is orchestrated by left-wing movements and individuals. The assassinations of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk the attempts on Trump, all the riots surrounding BLM and George Floyd etc Obviously directly inciting violence is not acceptable, but cherry picking obscure instances of it, while simultaneously overlooking the far larger problems that exist on the left, is bad faith. The threads celebrating the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk are some of the most shared Reddit posts of all time, with zero self-reflection from the left about this double standard.

tremon 2mo ago
> If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive Ah look, it's the hallmark of well-reasoned thinking. I have seen this exact phrasing numerous times over the past week, did the bots learn a new talking point? "The right" sure is doing a lot of tolerating around abortion, trans identities and women's bathrooms and sports.