zlacker

>>pseudo+(OP)
Activists want to eat their cake and have it too.

On the one hand they say platforms may exercise “their” free speech by moderating posts or banning people and that’s okay because it’s a private co. and not obliged to be platform for everyone.

Then on the other hand a different company also exercises its free speech (under their own argument) by not moderating posts and now that’s bad because some speech should be moderated and they disagree with those voices.

So like basically they’re for corporate free speech when they agree with the controls but are against it when they disagree with the results.

Just say it. We only want to allow our approved views — we don’t want free speech.

And not only that but they protest free speech but totally don’t walk out when they unscrupulously slurp up data on everyone.

>>mc32+28
My limited understanding of the situation is that there's general displeasure with the leadership response around Trump's persistent & ongoing violation of community standards that other members would have been censored for.

This is qualitatively extremely different from the position of "I should be allowed to do anything as a private party" and also different from the "government should regulate it".

It feels like a strawman to paint everyone with the same brush and then just focus on the contradictory extremes. There's a pretty clear contingent that is in favor of having clear community guidelines that apply to everyone & don't have blanket carve-outs for those with already powerful voices.