zlacker

>>bradge+(OP)
I don't follow this kind of thing so forgive my ignorance. Why was "platforming" DHH bad? Honest question.

>>kkaske+H9
He posted a personal blog post a few days ago decrying that London is not white enough. He has a history of very right-leaning positions.

>>alphag+Np
These kind of statements frustrate me. They are kind of manufactured consent statements. I likely don't agree with DHH positions as shared here, but when did we decide platforming very left-leaning positions is good, and platforming very right-leaning ones is bad? I wouldn't even mind if the position was that platforming either is good/bad. The framing here begs the question.

>>thevil+Mx
> hen did we decide platforming very left-leaning positions is good, and platforming very right-leaning ones is bad?

The same way DHH can have opinions, one-man-companies forking the sponsorship momey can have some too. "We" didn't decide anything, a sponsor company decided to stop sponsoring (with no public commentary), that's all that happened.

More to the point, "platforming" is an active operation, I think anyone can decide who they want to promote and why. It's fundamentally different from censoring.