[pjc50]

> I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me.

Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.

[nprz]

Since when is sharing a platform with people whose political views differ from yours equal to allowing targeted harassment? I don't think many would disagree that someone who threatens real life violence on someone should result in a banning from that platform. But an automatic ban based on political affiliation seems undemocratic.

[pjc50]

The original article doesn't mention anything like "an automatic ban based on political affiliation". The de-verification of white supremacists argument hinges around both verification as endorsement, and the possibility that some political beliefs (white supremacy) are in themselves a threat of violence.

[nxsynonym]

Meh, these threats exist in the real world as well. You can't silence everybody who might possibly be a threat at some point.

Those who actually make the threats should be dealt with, but last time I checked it's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven liberal".

[jff]

Yeah, it's pretty fucked up when an internet lynch mob gets you fired because you said "dongle" or something similarly bad.