Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, "we" haven't. You state this, but its not true.* The only question is if you incorrectly believe it or you're intentionally stating something that isn't factual because, well, who's going to spend the time to flag the proofs its a lie?
I do not care about the Biden laptop story. I don't think it's relevant. I think the docs questioning vaccines were nuts.
But I also know (not think, or believe, but know, because this is a fact not up for debate) that both stories were not of such a deviant nature that their preclusion was warranted.
As to the laptop, even the Times and Twitter admit that story was true and was of public interest and that its preclusion from Twitter and news other than the Post was a naked effort to put a finger on the scale of the election. Everyone knows why this was done. People feared it might get Trump re-elected. I don't think the latter was true, but the former indisputably happened.
You're okay with it because I think you think the existential threat was such that the ends justified the means. That's a perfectly defensible position. Own it.
As to vaccine doubting docs, there was not even a pretext offered. They were openly precluded because they were deemed threats to the public good.
I agree with that. I think those docs did harm. And I didn't mind seeing them deplatformed.
But I'm uncomfortable with this sort of thing because it is crafting consensus. Chomsky warned about big business and govt gaining the ability to control what people could see or hear, and he was right. Media consolidation has created some awful indirect censorship. I'm not sure it's much better when you put "people who [often quite inaccurately] think they know what's best" or "people who [almost always incorrectly] consider themselves better able to filter content than the hoi polloi" - of which groups you and I are card-carrying members - in charge of consensus manufacture.
And it's a canard to argue that platforms suck when filled with "bro-culture" sorts. If you don't wish to see what you don't wish to see - on any platform - you can simply avoid it. Platforms only suck when they're sanitized and number of views expressed on them narrowed. That's how you get echo chambers.
______
* The "we" thing is weak. Own your point.
|
Yo, you want a platform where you and your bros or whatever you call them want to hang, go create it, have fun, enjoy the bots.
No one has to do that for you, and the existing platforms have good reasons, which you'll never listen to, why they decided to do what they now do, which is minimalist moderation, mostly to enforce a very limited set of rules (I linked the twitter ones for you above). Some of those reasons relate to legal liability, some to usability, some to histories of abuse. Go look for the Klonick article if you want to actually undrestand any of it, but, really, you don't need to, because it's up to them to decide what to do with their platform.
As to we versus I, look, you're a tiresome mix of thick skulled and myopic with a dash of poor reading comprehension thrown in. In other words, the perfect patsy for the grifters that ail us.
