zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. Grim-4+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:30:54
Not trying to be snarky here, but I'm curious what percentage of the people complaining in this thread also complained about the constant censorship and deplatforming by Twitter pre-Musk? Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bad, both ways, it's just the outcry now is extremely telling.

Do you not believe it was happening before? Or were you not told that it was happening before? Or did you just not care before because it was directed towards people you were told are "bad"?

I wonder how many people in this thread are actual human beings, vs. bots/shills working overdrive to force the narrative through, but that's a topic for another day ..

replies(3): >>happyt+B1 >>cocaco+52 >>kredd+v2
2. happyt+B1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:40:28
>>Grim-4+(OP)
It's oversimplistic, to put it lightly, to just point to "everything after Musk" and "everything before Musk" and assert they're equal and anybody who smells like they've expressed more criticism on one side of that divide than the other is a hypocrite. There are a million variables that any honest person considers. Some bans are high profile, some aren't. Some bans are en masse, some are individual. Some are permanent, some are temporary. Some show bias, some are just for breaking rules while happening to also be apparently right/left-wing. Some are honest mistakes. Some are reversed.

People like Elon are particularly good at generating the image of disproportionate criticism, because he is the highest of high-profile, and he is a classic modern provoker. I.e. he invites rebuke and bitterness by mocking/trolling and generally being petty/childish toward those he disagrees with, which can work in his favor ("look at all the haters"). In this case, it's pushed even further by the fact that he is so aggressively pro-free-speech and critical of those who may take a more measured approach, and yet we keep seeing him apparently falling into the exact same trap of "well OK except for this case - let me modify the rules to be more subtle/pragmatic", except the result is perhaps now even less free than before by his own apparent definition. The irony/hypocrisy is mountainous.

Additionally, "the same people who X are now Y" is an extremely common fallacy. It may be true, but much more often than not, you're assuming that two groups of people are mostly the same people when they are not (i.e. that every person is either left or right, pro-Elon or enti-Elon, etc; and every opinion a person expresses must fall on one side of each line). It's very easy to project one's internal concrete images of enemies onto the enormous, dynamic masses of the internet, or a particular forum, and "discover" hypocrisy.

3. cocaco+52[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:43:50
>>Grim-4+(OP)
Wouldn't it all hinge on the reason for the bans/suspensions? I'm not sure what a simple percentage would tell you.

I'm just glad I avoided social media for the most part.

4. kredd+v2[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:45:41
>>Grim-4+(OP)
It’s just a bit funny how “absolutely no censorship” turns into “lol k only censorship that I like”. Somehow quite a lot of people who were “free speech absolutists” playing mental gymnastics to explain why THIS type is acceptable.

Disclaimer: I am not a free speech absolutist, and realize its shortcomings in public forums.

replies(1): >>spoils+T3
◧◩
5. spoils+T3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 03:53:53
>>kredd+v2
Luckily this forum doesn't have any of those - and if any claim to be, it encourages curious discussion, so I'm willing to chalk it up to playing devil's advocate.
[go to top]