zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
The article completely misses the point. Some middlemen like Twitter or Facebook does not want to be associated with certain images or point of view, perhaps because of advertising or user demographics or whatever reason, and they decide which content is ok or not. Both sender and receiver can want to have Trump tweets, but Twitter will not want that so they block it.

I don’t think Twitter is wrong, and it is not really different from Apple not letting pornography into the App Store, but it is still deeply troubling to me at some level. And it is neither moderation like discussed in the article or censorship as discussed in the article.

>>kmonse+hs
If they instituted the suggestions in the article and some journalist subsequently wrote a piece with "Anti-semitic tweets found next to Coke ads" or whatnot, wouldn't we all just shrug and say "then change your filters"? It becomes as much a non-story as "Children watching telly at midnight exposed to sexual content paid for by BigCo ads".

>>brigan+lt
Maybe, but they are not taking that chance. Cancel culture is a real thing even if we think it only happens to people or companies that deserve it.