| It's better because Twitter doesn't want to spread their propaganda even if it's rebutted. Not to mention the population most affected by this can't challenge it since they're being decimated by forced re-education camps where they are sterilized by the same government that tweeted this It's a little tone deaf to ask why it being challenged is preferable in light of that isn't it? - This is getting so old so quickly in the last few days. I'll take the flak from people insisting the traction here is totally organic and has nothing to do with current events and that I'm just trying to derail things with "orange man bad": This wouldn't have made front page as quickly before Trump's suspension. A quick search shows out of the last few months this post already has more points than any other twitter removal post. Their removal of an entire campaign wasn't even a blip: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/technology/twitter-chines... At the end of the day Twitter left a President's account along for 4 years through hundreds of violations of their platform, petty insults, vague threats to entire nations, etc. They finally blinked when that person led to 5 casualties after a mob attacked the Capitol. - For the slippery slope to matter, there needs to be a slope. Twitter has demonstrated their extreme restraint in censoring anything remotely deemed as official. People can keep forcing this angle of how "dangerous" it is that they're willing to remove only the most egregious instances of rules violations on their private platform but it's just not true. It's their right that was cemented by the Supreme Court because some lady didn't want to bake cakes for gay people, and the discretion in applying that right is excellent. You can talk about hypotheticals where they go off the deep end and start censoring everything... but by that logic the US government can go off the deep end and start censoring print media. Nothing is immune from doomsday hypotheticals. |