9 ms·

I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with. I want tools that help me communicat

I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with. I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things. Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with to also have this ability. You will be censored if you want other people censored.

bastardoperator 5y ago
Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences", which just isn't the reality we're living in.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I was thinking about this the other day: in public physical spaces, we often have police who step in when someone says something that breaks the law. In private physical spaces (e.g., a restaurant, store, bar, or house), we either have owners, managers, or private security who step in when someone starts breaking store policy or law. However, in public (or pseudo-public) digital spaces and private digital spaces, some of us seem to rebel strongly against any type of norm enforcement. I mean, I can see how sometimes the internet seems to promise even more freedom of speech than in physical spaces and also that sometimes there are not very clear written laws or policies for those digital spaces, paired with unclear or unfair enforcement of those laws and policies. Makes me wonder what the future of digital governance will look like. Do we have the digital equivalent of cops roaming semi-public spaces like Twitter and Facebook? If so, by whose consent are they governing? Do these orgs hire the equivalent of private security guards or bouncers? Have they already done so through moderators and such? Anyway, just got me thinking about some of the challenges in the governance of digital spaces.
  - ThinkBeat 5y ago
    Public spaces is the only place where the law regarding freedom of speech directly applies. What you can say under such circumstances is pretty diverse. A lot of content Facebook removes would be protected speech in a public space. In a private physical space its up to the owner. And there is a lot of racism, misogony, bullying, sexist, misandry, threats to public figures, drugs sold, hookers, evil gossip, conspiracy theories, fake news, bad medical advice, locker room talk, inside deals, threats that go on in pubs, gyms, bars, clubs, by people of all races, genders, and ages (once you are allowed in). If you owned a bar and you swore to avoid all of the above, you would need to kick out nearly everyone on a good night with lots of spirits and beer sold. "Ok Bob, I know we are in rural Arizona, but what you just said, well some academic in California could find that offensive, you have to leave now. "
- _3u10 5y ago
  bastardoperator, would you also say that you don't denigrate people based on their parents marital status online? On YouTube just saying your name would get your videos demonetized and I have a feeling your username banned.
  - bastardoperator 5y ago
    You should do some additional research then: https://www.youtube.com/user/BastarD/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/BastarD/videos Being demonetized is not censorship.
    - _3u10 5y ago
      Never said it was. I’m saying that big tech takes punitive actions against users that aren’t related to any of the things you don’t do. For example on Facebook men are allowed to show nipples on pictures while women are not. For Canada at least, that’s discrimination based on sex / gender. Many big tech moderation policies actively encourage discrimination. It's great to know your username is currently acceptable to YouTube. Basically what happens on FB is comments get wildly misconstrued by the mod team / AI, thankfully it appears the mod team or it AI has a limited vocabulary so as long as you use 5 syllable words to describe your thoughts its pretty easy to avoid. I tend to agree with you that censorship is probably an inexact or overreaching term for what's going on. Of course social media is balancing a number of factors, pleasing their regulators, pleasing their advertisers, pleasing their employees. It feels like the creation of a Digital Singapore in the vein of William Gibson's 1993 article Disneyland with the Death Penalty. (Of course the penalties are much less severe) https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ ------------- "IT'S LIKE AN entire country run by Jeffrey Katzenberg," the producer had said, "under the motto 'Be happy or I'll kill you.'" We were sitting in an office a block from Rodeo Drive, on large black furniture leased with Japanese venture capital. Now that I'm actually here, the Disneyland metaphor is proving impossible to shake. For that matter, Rodeo Drive comes frequently to mind, though the local equivalent feels more like 30 or 40 Beverly Centers put end to end. ;-) Was it Laurie Anderson who said that VR would never look real until they learned how to put some dirt in it? Singapore's airport, the Changi Airtropolis, seemed to possess no more resolution than some early VPL world. There was no dirt whatsoever; no muss, no furred fractal edge to things. Outside, the organic, florid as ever in the tropics, had been gardened into brilliant green, and all-too-perfect examples of itself. Only the clouds were feathered with chaos—weird columnar structures towering above the Strait of China.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  > Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, espouse unpopular political beliefs, mention atrocities committed by the government, attempt to peacefully organize against the government in power, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You left a couple use cases for censorship off your list, so I added them back in. I totally agree with you, I don't do any of those things either, so no big deal for the two of us.
- anamax 5y ago
  It doesn't matter whether you're offended by the word "bastardchild." What matters is that I'm offended. Heck, "bastardchild" doesn't even have to offend me because it is clearly offensive to bastards and possibly children. Your "justification" for such offensive behavior is no different than the offensive explanations by folks who wanted to have lawn jockeys. How dare you. Your account should be deleted. That's how cancel culture works.
- FFRefresh 5y ago
  Do you think you should face consequences for your username? People of color are more likely to be called that slur, and you are their “operator”? I talked to my BIPOC friends and they think that’s incredibly racist. They say you are dehumanizing them and are clearly a white supremacist who celebrates operating POC. They are experiencing trauma right now given the outright violence of your name.
- mellosouls 5y ago
  I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences" Whereas I find your counter-argument devolves into "Crappy people are those who disagree with my point of view and they should face consequences"... The truth is there are extremes on both sides; but the censorship seems to be overwhelmingly driven by one.
  - avgDev 5y ago
    The whole "cancel culture" concept has literally be around for years, it was just marketed now and used for politics. Humans have been cancelling people and things for eternity. People with extreme views that did not align with the majority were always pushed away. This even happened in medicine and science.
    - mc32 5y ago
      I think the problem is the "democratization" of cancelation. Someone says something mildly controversial (some talk radio host said something terse about a neighbor) and people start lodging complaints against the employer and the hosts advertisers. It's idiotic.
      - kelseyfrog 5y ago
        I'm simply not convinced that cancellations of mild controversiality represent a significant proportion of total cancellations without evidence.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        As if this hasn't been happening to gay people who got outed until extremely recently. It wasn't exclusively democratic, of course: the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was only repealed a decade ago. Cancel culture isn't remotely new; only now it's punishing bigotry, not an instrument of bigotry. And, no shit, bigots are pissed about that.
        mc32 5y ago
- motherzucker 5y ago
  >Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't... spread misinformation That's because you can't think outside the box. All the greatest iconoclastic truths in human history were labeled "dangerous misinformation" by the authorities.
  - bastardoperator 5y ago
    LOL, okay... best you can do is personal attacks? When did Facebook and twitter become the authorities? This is a prime example of why we can't have nice things.
    - motherzucker 5y ago
      >When did Facebook and twitter become the authorities? When they became defacto owners of the largest modern day town square where the majority of political speech is conducted?
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    What kind of argument is that? It's not like those people invented electrical power. They spread lies which cost lives. Every day. People DIE because of misinformation. Snake oil salesman were no heroes of humanity.
    - motherzucker 5y ago
      >What kind of argument is that? An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights? >They spread lies which cost lives. Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.
      - Krasnol 5y ago
        > An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights? This is not what I meant and you know it. > Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights. This is utter bullshit and derailment. People who spread misinformation about covid are wrong. There are scientific facts which prove them wrong. The fact that they repeat something against those facts doesn't make them heroes because there was Copernicus who was also "against something". Copernicus had the facts side behind him. Those guys you try to advertise here are the church which was against him because they had THE FEELING that he was wrong and no scientific facts which would support them.
- mc32 5y ago
  You may not have raised any questions about Covid provenance, spoken about Hunter Biden's cavorting the efficacy of Covid treatments, etc. I'm sure there are tons more actual legal things you cannot freely talk about on FB.
- jeffrogers 5y ago
  What do you call it when you make a post that you assume your friends can see and only some are presented your post?
  - darkwizard42 5y ago
    What do you mean by presented? If I have a friend who has 4000 friends and I am their 4000th most important friend, I would sufficiently believe that a generic post of mine would not appear at the top of their feed and they might not see it. I get the idea of not having all the "so and so friend liked so and so's post" which feel low quality in a feed, but part of a custom feed is prioritizing updates from people you actually want to see updates from
    - jeffrogers 5y ago
      If you were making the choice as to which friends you wanted to hear from or updates you wanted to receive from you're friends, then I take you point. When someone else, or their algorithm, makes these decisions that is something else and it may actually veer into censorship.
      - darkwizard42 5y ago
        Hm. This argument falls flat to me. A feed is considered editorialized by you, but nearly any combo of content is editorialized to some degree. A magazine makes editorial decisions on where in the magazine articles are placed... this does not mean its censorship, it just means you haven't read the whole thing. Also, the tools exists on all of these social media products to actually go and check on your friends' pages where you can see their updates. Nothing stops you from doing that and consuming the content you wish.
        jeffrogers 5y ago
        Well, however someone might consider feeds, we don’t have the ability to truly take control of them. At least in the case of Facebook, they mostly decide what we see and they very deliberately make the case that they are not a media company like the magazines. They are claiming they are not editorializing because the machines are making the decisions. (Albeit with instructions from their engineers.)
- tasogare 5y ago
  > Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. You didn't did it yet. All of those are moving targets, and moving extremely fast especially in the US. I could say a dozen of totally non controversial statements in my country of residence (Japan), half of which being controversial or labeled some kind of -ist in my own country (France) and all of them warranting me cancellation in the US. At this rate what you are writing now will be categorized racist, threatening or harassing in a few years or so. Even your nickname could already be considered some kind of harassment as it single out kids born out of wedlock and is thus enforcing "the patriarchy". (Think it's far-fetched? Have a look at GitHub renaming the master branch)
  - bastardoperator 5y ago
    I disagree and if you look at my profile I provide a explanatory url for the name. As a bastard child myself I'm not concerned and when used as noun the meaning changes. I do think it's funny that people still do not understand git well enough to realize that the default branch is whatever you want it to be. Even worse, this change/name is a click away in GitHub too. What exactly am I saying here that will be controversial in the future? I'm genuinely curious.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- olah_1 5y ago
  > Then again I don't spread misinformation They cut the phone lines in Chernobyl for the same reason.
- stolenmerch 5y ago
  > Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different people. I trust you are a good citizen online and don't touch controversy, but you can't possibly know how language will evolve. I've seen simple and honest disagreements on Twitter turn into accusations of harassment in real time. The threat of misinformation is even more elusive and mercurial. I remember just a year ago when saying SARS-CoV-2 might have accidentally leaked from a lab was WIDELY considered dangerous information that should be scrubbed from the internet. Now it's at least acceptable to discuss in congress and on legacy media outlets. The "don't be a dick" model of speech regulation is full of traps and loopholes and problems that make it a bad guideline in many circumstances.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    I remember reading articles that claimed that the China leak theory was racist against Asians and was dangerous because it would cause violence against asians. It was so incredibly stupid
    - krapp 5y ago
      It does cause violence against Asians. It adds fuel to the increasing hostility and violence that Asian communities have been experiencing ever since the outbreak began. This is the case regardless of whether or not any such theory is true, so that claim isn't incredibly stupid at all.
      - honkdaddy 5y ago
        So in your opinion then, if it were to be true, should the facts be covered up in order to prevent more hypothetical violence? I’m confused about this line of thinking.
- wowokay 5y ago
  If we want to go “there” then can I deem all nudity be censored? Your fixation on viewing things as either racist or not racist, as information or misinformation is opinionated. I think it is wrong that people can tweet pornography on the platform without any censorship. I doubt the Gay Comunity would be okay with that being censored, those are the posts I am subjected too. The point is any form of censorship will hamper someone’s freedom of speech. Why can’t everyone just block people that post what they don’t like? The way I do on twitter? Otherwise if we are going down the block what I don’t like road so will I!
- MR4D 5y ago
  > I'm not censored on any platform But your username is enough to get you kicked off of many.

bastardoperator 5y ago

Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences", which just isn't the reality we're living in.

jimkleiber 5y ago
I was thinking about this the other day: in public physical spaces, we often have police who step in when someone says something that breaks the law. In private physical spaces (e.g., a restaurant, store, bar, or house), we either have owners, managers, or private security who step in when someone starts breaking store policy or law. However, in public (or pseudo-public) digital spaces and private digital spaces, some of us seem to rebel strongly against any type of norm enforcement. I mean, I can see how sometimes the internet seems to promise even more freedom of speech than in physical spaces and also that sometimes there are not very clear written laws or policies for those digital spaces, paired with unclear or unfair enforcement of those laws and policies. Makes me wonder what the future of digital governance will look like. Do we have the digital equivalent of cops roaming semi-public spaces like Twitter and Facebook? If so, by whose consent are they governing? Do these orgs hire the equivalent of private security guards or bouncers? Have they already done so through moderators and such? Anyway, just got me thinking about some of the challenges in the governance of digital spaces.
- ThinkBeat 5y ago
  Public spaces is the only place where the law regarding freedom of speech directly applies. What you can say under such circumstances is pretty diverse. A lot of content Facebook removes would be protected speech in a public space. In a private physical space its up to the owner. And there is a lot of racism, misogony, bullying, sexist, misandry, threats to public figures, drugs sold, hookers, evil gossip, conspiracy theories, fake news, bad medical advice, locker room talk, inside deals, threats that go on in pubs, gyms, bars, clubs, by people of all races, genders, and ages (once you are allowed in). If you owned a bar and you swore to avoid all of the above, you would need to kick out nearly everyone on a good night with lots of spirits and beer sold. "Ok Bob, I know we are in rural Arizona, but what you just said, well some academic in California could find that offensive, you have to leave now. "
_3u10 5y ago
bastardoperator, would you also say that you don't denigrate people based on their parents marital status online? On YouTube just saying your name would get your videos demonetized and I have a feeling your username banned.
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  You should do some additional research then: https://www.youtube.com/user/BastarD/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/BastarD/videos Being demonetized is not censorship.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Never said it was. I’m saying that big tech takes punitive actions against users that aren’t related to any of the things you don’t do. For example on Facebook men are allowed to show nipples on pictures while women are not. For Canada at least, that’s discrimination based on sex / gender. Many big tech moderation policies actively encourage discrimination. It's great to know your username is currently acceptable to YouTube. Basically what happens on FB is comments get wildly misconstrued by the mod team / AI, thankfully it appears the mod team or it AI has a limited vocabulary so as long as you use 5 syllable words to describe your thoughts its pretty easy to avoid. I tend to agree with you that censorship is probably an inexact or overreaching term for what's going on. Of course social media is balancing a number of factors, pleasing their regulators, pleasing their advertisers, pleasing their employees. It feels like the creation of a Digital Singapore in the vein of William Gibson's 1993 article Disneyland with the Death Penalty. (Of course the penalties are much less severe) https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ ------------- "IT'S LIKE AN entire country run by Jeffrey Katzenberg," the producer had said, "under the motto 'Be happy or I'll kill you.'" We were sitting in an office a block from Rodeo Drive, on large black furniture leased with Japanese venture capital. Now that I'm actually here, the Disneyland metaphor is proving impossible to shake. For that matter, Rodeo Drive comes frequently to mind, though the local equivalent feels more like 30 or 40 Beverly Centers put end to end. ;-) Was it Laurie Anderson who said that VR would never look real until they learned how to put some dirt in it? Singapore's airport, the Changi Airtropolis, seemed to possess no more resolution than some early VPL world. There was no dirt whatsoever; no muss, no furred fractal edge to things. Outside, the organic, florid as ever in the tropics, had been gardened into brilliant green, and all-too-perfect examples of itself. Only the clouds were feathered with chaos—weird columnar structures towering above the Strait of China.
karaterobot 5y ago
> Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, espouse unpopular political beliefs, mention atrocities committed by the government, attempt to peacefully organize against the government in power, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You left a couple use cases for censorship off your list, so I added them back in. I totally agree with you, I don't do any of those things either, so no big deal for the two of us.
anamax 5y ago
It doesn't matter whether you're offended by the word "bastardchild." What matters is that I'm offended. Heck, "bastardchild" doesn't even have to offend me because it is clearly offensive to bastards and possibly children. Your "justification" for such offensive behavior is no different than the offensive explanations by folks who wanted to have lawn jockeys. How dare you. Your account should be deleted. That's how cancel culture works.
FFRefresh 5y ago
Do you think you should face consequences for your username? People of color are more likely to be called that slur, and you are their “operator”? I talked to my BIPOC friends and they think that’s incredibly racist. They say you are dehumanizing them and are clearly a white supremacist who celebrates operating POC. They are experiencing trauma right now given the outright violence of your name.
mellosouls 5y ago
I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences" Whereas I find your counter-argument devolves into "Crappy people are those who disagree with my point of view and they should face consequences"... The truth is there are extremes on both sides; but the censorship seems to be overwhelmingly driven by one.
- avgDev 5y ago
  The whole "cancel culture" concept has literally be around for years, it was just marketed now and used for politics. Humans have been cancelling people and things for eternity. People with extreme views that did not align with the majority were always pushed away. This even happened in medicine and science.
  - mc32 5y ago
    I think the problem is the "democratization" of cancelation. Someone says something mildly controversial (some talk radio host said something terse about a neighbor) and people start lodging complaints against the employer and the hosts advertisers. It's idiotic.
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      I'm simply not convinced that cancellations of mild controversiality represent a significant proportion of total cancellations without evidence.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      As if this hasn't been happening to gay people who got outed until extremely recently. It wasn't exclusively democratic, of course: the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was only repealed a decade ago. Cancel culture isn't remotely new; only now it's punishing bigotry, not an instrument of bigotry. And, no shit, bigots are pissed about that.
      - mc32 5y ago
motherzucker 5y ago
>Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't... spread misinformation That's because you can't think outside the box. All the greatest iconoclastic truths in human history were labeled "dangerous misinformation" by the authorities.
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  LOL, okay... best you can do is personal attacks? When did Facebook and twitter become the authorities? This is a prime example of why we can't have nice things.
  - motherzucker 5y ago
    >When did Facebook and twitter become the authorities? When they became defacto owners of the largest modern day town square where the majority of political speech is conducted?
- Krasnol 5y ago
  What kind of argument is that? It's not like those people invented electrical power. They spread lies which cost lives. Every day. People DIE because of misinformation. Snake oil salesman were no heroes of humanity.
  - motherzucker 5y ago
    >What kind of argument is that? An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights? >They spread lies which cost lives. Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      > An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights? This is not what I meant and you know it. > Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights. This is utter bullshit and derailment. People who spread misinformation about covid are wrong. There are scientific facts which prove them wrong. The fact that they repeat something against those facts doesn't make them heroes because there was Copernicus who was also "against something". Copernicus had the facts side behind him. Those guys you try to advertise here are the church which was against him because they had THE FEELING that he was wrong and no scientific facts which would support them.
mc32 5y ago
You may not have raised any questions about Covid provenance, spoken about Hunter Biden's cavorting the efficacy of Covid treatments, etc. I'm sure there are tons more actual legal things you cannot freely talk about on FB.
jeffrogers 5y ago
What do you call it when you make a post that you assume your friends can see and only some are presented your post?
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  What do you mean by presented? If I have a friend who has 4000 friends and I am their 4000th most important friend, I would sufficiently believe that a generic post of mine would not appear at the top of their feed and they might not see it. I get the idea of not having all the "so and so friend liked so and so's post" which feel low quality in a feed, but part of a custom feed is prioritizing updates from people you actually want to see updates from
  - jeffrogers 5y ago
    If you were making the choice as to which friends you wanted to hear from or updates you wanted to receive from you're friends, then I take you point. When someone else, or their algorithm, makes these decisions that is something else and it may actually veer into censorship.
    - darkwizard42 5y ago
      Hm. This argument falls flat to me. A feed is considered editorialized by you, but nearly any combo of content is editorialized to some degree. A magazine makes editorial decisions on where in the magazine articles are placed... this does not mean its censorship, it just means you haven't read the whole thing. Also, the tools exists on all of these social media products to actually go and check on your friends' pages where you can see their updates. Nothing stops you from doing that and consuming the content you wish.
      - jeffrogers 5y ago
        Well, however someone might consider feeds, we don’t have the ability to truly take control of them. At least in the case of Facebook, they mostly decide what we see and they very deliberately make the case that they are not a media company like the magazines. They are claiming they are not editorializing because the machines are making the decisions. (Albeit with instructions from their engineers.)
tasogare 5y ago
> Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. You didn't did it yet. All of those are moving targets, and moving extremely fast especially in the US. I could say a dozen of totally non controversial statements in my country of residence (Japan), half of which being controversial or labeled some kind of -ist in my own country (France) and all of them warranting me cancellation in the US. At this rate what you are writing now will be categorized racist, threatening or harassing in a few years or so. Even your nickname could already be considered some kind of harassment as it single out kids born out of wedlock and is thus enforcing "the patriarchy". (Think it's far-fetched? Have a look at GitHub renaming the master branch)
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  I disagree and if you look at my profile I provide a explanatory url for the name. As a bastard child myself I'm not concerned and when used as noun the meaning changes. I do think it's funny that people still do not understand git well enough to realize that the default branch is whatever you want it to be. Even worse, this change/name is a click away in GitHub too. What exactly am I saying here that will be controversial in the future? I'm genuinely curious.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
olah_1 5y ago
> Then again I don't spread misinformation They cut the phone lines in Chernobyl for the same reason.
stolenmerch 5y ago
> Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different people. I trust you are a good citizen online and don't touch controversy, but you can't possibly know how language will evolve. I've seen simple and honest disagreements on Twitter turn into accusations of harassment in real time. The threat of misinformation is even more elusive and mercurial. I remember just a year ago when saying SARS-CoV-2 might have accidentally leaked from a lab was WIDELY considered dangerous information that should be scrubbed from the internet. Now it's at least acceptable to discuss in congress and on legacy media outlets. The "don't be a dick" model of speech regulation is full of traps and loopholes and problems that make it a bad guideline in many circumstances.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  I remember reading articles that claimed that the China leak theory was racist against Asians and was dangerous because it would cause violence against asians. It was so incredibly stupid
  - krapp 5y ago
    It does cause violence against Asians. It adds fuel to the increasing hostility and violence that Asian communities have been experiencing ever since the outbreak began. This is the case regardless of whether or not any such theory is true, so that claim isn't incredibly stupid at all.
    - honkdaddy 5y ago
      So in your opinion then, if it were to be true, should the facts be covered up in order to prevent more hypothetical violence? I’m confused about this line of thinking.
wowokay 5y ago
If we want to go “there” then can I deem all nudity be censored? Your fixation on viewing things as either racist or not racist, as information or misinformation is opinionated. I think it is wrong that people can tweet pornography on the platform without any censorship. I doubt the Gay Comunity would be okay with that being censored, those are the posts I am subjected too. The point is any form of censorship will hamper someone’s freedom of speech. Why can’t everyone just block people that post what they don’t like? The way I do on twitter? Otherwise if we are going down the block what I don’t like road so will I!
MR4D 5y ago
> I'm not censored on any platform But your username is enough to get you kicked off of many.