deadpannini

10 ms·

61.
by deadpannini 5y ago
The original post claimed this, with no substantiation: > University lecturers have been protested or cancelled for decades for reasons unrelated to their topic ... Back in the day it was "edgy" to protest or cancel a speaker d
62.
by deadpannini 5y ago
Then it shouldn't be hard to share a few examples, right?
63.
by deadpannini 5y ago
Protesting isn't addressed in the article. Who in the 60s and 70s was invited to speak at a college or university, then later had their invitation withdrawn due to their support of the Vietnam war or corporate interests?
64.
by deadpannini 5y ago
I must have been too cryptic. Is the actual goal of de-platforming individuals to punish or silence specific individuals, or is it to suppress remove certain kinds of speech from public discourse?
65.
by deadpannini 5y ago
Yeah, fighting ignorance isn't easy. But the alternatives are much worse, ineffective in the long run, and by damaging your credibility, impair your ability to fight rationally in the future. De-platforming is always going to fail beca
66.
by deadpannini 5y ago
"Someone want to throw out there a better way to combat disinformation than just armchair criticizing their decision?" Yes. Combat disinformation by refuting it. This requires credibility, and censorship is one of the fastest ways
67.
by deadpannini 5y ago
> Firstly, this is a content policy, this is separate from actual enforcement. I would doubt that google enforces this proactively, rather they want a possibility to shut down what has now been dubbed 'fake news'. Discretionary
68.
by deadpannini 5y ago
> This is the problem. What you thought was misinformation is only really a few studies away from being flipped around. The big tech companies are destroying the value and credibility of our information ecosystems, by treating the first