5 ms·
The rules are subjective so they are more like whims really. The President put out a video asking people, in plain language, to go home and co-operate with Cap
by throwawaybchr 6y ago
The rules are subjective so they are more like whims really.
The President put out a video asking people, in plain language, to go home and co-operate with Capitol police. In this same video he reaffirmed his contention that the election was fraudulent, and said that the protesters were loved. Whether he did this sincerely or as a ploy to increase the likelihood of being obeyed, nobody can say without mind reading powers.
One camp will say this video can be interpreted as harmful because it contains the claim that the election was fraudulent
Another camp will say you are allowed to hold the position that the election was fraudulent and at the same time condemn violence.
Twitter has chosen to interpret the video to say that there is a risk of violence despite a plain spoken appeal against violence. They are essentially interpreting the meaning of the message in a way that is contrary to the plain language used in the video.
In such a scenario I would probably not treat it as a rule, since this kind of rule can be made up spontaneously and can be used to stop anyone from saying anything really.
I think it should not be celebrated when a corporation decides to enforce arbitrary rules based on its own interpretations of someone else's plain words.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- scsilver 6y agoA corporation should be able to protect itself from being a platform to promote negative externalities.
- throwawaybchr 6y agoIn India recently, a TV commercial depicted an inter faith marriage. This enraged some hindu groups and the ad got pulled because there was a vocal online outcry, calls for boycotts, doxxing, etc. The corporation protected itself from the negative externality. I'm all for it, but I recognise what is also happening as a result. While in the above case it's the corporation pulling its own ad, and in the Facebook case they're a platform, the end result is the same. Some activist group tells the advertiser not to advertise because their ad equates them to X and X is bad, here are a bajillion deeply offended people. At Facebook you have employees colluding with activist groups giving them tips on how best they can "effect change" on Facebook policy. Which advertisers to target, which controversies to use in their activism. It's all to bring about the desired political outcome of some radicals - limit the reach of my political enemy or their strongest arguments. In the USA the religious group doing the activism is not Christianity anymore - back in the 70s and 80s the Christian lobby had the same degree of influence over TV show content. Today there is a secular belief system occupying that same position, with the opposing political party at the helm, much like the religious right of a few decades ago.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- scsilver 6y agoYou say that as if we our secular nation doesnt have "under god" on our money. The religious right still perturbs liberal democracy in this nation on a vastly larger scale than the so called secular belief system you think has usurped them. This nation was not formed to protect your speech from the ire public opinion, it was formed to protect it from states, the power that holder monopoly over forceful power.