The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
Additionally, Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
I will note you replied to a comment accusing the whistleblower of being trans. That comment (that you replied to) was, of course, ad hominem.
For the comment in question, person 1 is the zestyping or the whistleblower, depending. Person 2 is you. Your proposition Y (flagged and hidden now) is not invalid, exactly, but "explaining" it to you is pointless given it is a fallacy diverging from the relevance of the content.
The proposition X, which is, in part, "These qualities are what really set this apart from other criticism of social media, and both are incredibly important and healthy in a world where Facebook and Twitter have normalized the opposite."
Your proposition Y, is an attack on the whistleblower and her credibility, not the the content of her own propositions, which may be viewed here:
No mention of "banning" "hate speech" at all. Just a plea for someone to do something to remove the blocks in place by way of Facebook (as a corporation) needing to continue making profit, perhaps at the expense of collective sanity, by not addressing the dissonance their platform creates in the population.
If you had addressed those claims by her in your comment, you would avoid making strawman arguments.
In closing, I get that you and others are frustrated that certain types of posted content are targeted for removal. However, that in and of itself does not mean meaningful and opposed discourse can't occur or that anyone has a "right" to post wherever they like, saying whatever they want. It is that it (your comments) may not occur without significant work involved that we all care about. Cheap and easy discourse isn't good for anyone, harms society, and will continue to be exploited until we come up with a technical solution to solve it.
In the meantime, explanations and education are in order. Thanks for the question! Hope this helps without too much blame.
P.S. Entirely speculative at this point, but I suspect if we built an inverted index of a fallacious argument, we'd find the weights/distances between words significantly divergent from the original proposition.
She proposes a ministry for regulating tech which means there will be a permanent line between Washington and large social media companies. This is a horrible approach by any objective meassure and it would obviously also institutionalize Facebook (see "An array of possible next steps"[1]). This indicate that I am right this is not an attempt at weakening Facebook and social media in general, but an attempt to commandeer its power to censor.
Since she is proposing a political body with the power to censor all social media, why is evidence of her political motivations and potential political connections to the whistleblowing a strawman?
> In closing, I get that you and others are frustrated that certain types of posted content are targeted for removal. However, that in and of itself does not mean meaningful and opposed discourse can't occur or that anyone has a "right" to post wherever they like, saying whatever they want.
New discoveries are in the margins, and is indistinguishable from nonsense. A lack of certainty and a certain amount of curiosity is needed to go through the process of distinguishing the two, which is why tyrannical regimes do not innovate well.
Why are you so certain that you are right and is capable of knowing when dissenters are wrong? Whom do you think is capable of distinguish truth from falsity in the margins, and censor with absolute power without falling for the temptation to misuse it?
> It is that it (your comments) may not occur without significant work involved that we all care about. Cheap and easy discourse isn't good for anyone, harms society, and will continue to be exploited until we come up with a technical solution to solve it.
This accusation of dissenters not doing the work, while those in tech that censor do, is not supported by evidence.
Censorship by tech has in the last year been wrong on major important points, e.g:
- Not long ago the lab leak hypothesis was censored, delaying potential life saving measures
- Not long ago Hunters laptop was called fake and censored, affecting democratic primary outcome and election outcomes
- Not long ago early treatment solutions to covid was censored, delaying deployment of early treatment solutions similar to the one Merck just released [2]
This is the problem replying to people who make strawman arguments.
Also, dissent is being amplified with software, which itself is not conscious. Being more conscious of your points will help matters. Not being more conscious of your points will help accelerate the madness.
You've failed to acknowledge anyone's argument here, which is really the hard part to learn.