Comment by josteink
2 years ago
> re-enabling known hate-speech accounts
“Hate speech” is left-wing code for “someone with an opposing point of view”.
Having those accounts unbanned, if nothing else, is a healthy sign.
What this thread is about though (banning outbound links to other platforms), not so much. That plain reeks of desperation.
"Deathcon 3 on jews" is more valuable speech than links to facebook profiles, gotcha.
Uh. Did you miss the part of my comment which said that link-banning being bad?
Also nice hyperbole you got there.
What hyperbole? We've got a policy that is link-banning while unbanning people who are holding "legally allowed opinions" (nice edit) like Mr. West and other racists.
4 replies →
That seems to be a real boon for advertising revenue there at twitter. Just what advertisers dream of, their ad next to a post by some antisemitism/racism/lgbt hate.
You just lost a large group of potential customers. Brilliant marketing strategy.
Maybe if you sell flags that go on oversized pickups. About everyone else is a miss in that sort of stupidity.
No, it's not code in this case. Many of the accounts he re-enabled were full-on white supremacists. That's not an "opposing point of view" it's beyond the pale of civilized society and we literally fought wars to defeat it last century.
And the list of accounts he banned were from a list left-wing/anarchist accounts given to him by known self-proclaimed fascists.
If you think that's healthy, you have problems.
Conversely, "an opposing point of view" is right-wing code used to mask hate speech, when it occurs.
Does hate speech exist? Yes. Are we in danger of overusing the term? Yes.