13 ms·

Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. It's not a very well thought of equivalence when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fir

Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. It's not a very well thought of equivalence when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored, because platforms think (and most of the time they're right) that consumers are too stupid.

egeozcan 5y ago
> Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. I don't understand what you mean. > when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored Um, don't you think they should get banned when there isn't a fire?
atoav 5y ago
> Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. Right wingers encourage and carry out violence against people, based on traits like race, otherness, etc. Left wingers mostly focus on property, fascists ("Antifa") and sometimes the police. Both kinds of violence are wrong to various degrees, but I can kinda understand that someone who formulates a threat of vandalism against corporate symbols will get banned less likely than someone who formulates violent threats against minorities or specific persons. These two things are not the same, it is the difference between someone keying your mercedes and someone assaulting you in the street. One thing is shitty, but survivable, the other isn't. This characterisation is not based on my feelings or the claims of either side, but backed by publications like the annual report on the protection of the constitution as it is made by the German Verfassungsschutz – an organization which can hardly be described as left leaning: https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE/verfassungsschutzberichte/2021-06-brief-summary-2020-report-on-the-protection-of-the-constitution.pdf https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE... I only found the summary in english, the full (German) version has more fine grained statistics which support my characterisation.

egeozcan 5y ago

> Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. I don't understand what you mean. > when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored Um, don't you think they should get banned when there isn't a fire?

atoav 5y ago

> Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. Right wingers encourage and carry out violence against people, based on traits like race, otherness, etc. Left wingers mostly focus on property, fascists ("Antifa") and sometimes the police. Both kinds of violence are wrong to various degrees, but I can kinda understand that someone who formulates a threat of vandalism against corporate symbols will get banned less likely than someone who formulates violent threats against minorities or specific persons. These two things are not the same, it is the difference between someone keying your mercedes and someone assaulting you in the street. One thing is shitty, but survivable, the other isn't. This characterisation is not based on my feelings or the claims of either side, but backed by publications like the annual report on the protection of the constitution as it is made by the German Verfassungsschutz – an organization which can hardly be described as left leaning: https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE/verfassungsschutzberichte/2021-06-brief-summary-2020-report-on-the-protection-of-the-constitution.pdf https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE... I only found the summary in english, the full (German) version has more fine grained statistics which support my characterisation.