[afavour]

> others view any talk about guns as toxic that should be banned.

Do they? Are you sure? I’ve certainly seen many calls for the glorification of violence to be limited, stuff like that. But banning actual discussion of guns? I’d be interested to see examples of people advocating for that. In any case, Twitter can simply ignore people asking for that because it isn’t a reasonable request.

You can have sensible, level headed discussions about guns and gun control. You can also have inflammatory, toxic discussions about them. It’s interesting to think how you’d develop a system that prioritises the former without bringing along the latter.

> Who's worldview should win? Mine, your's, Twitters?

What does "win" mean, here? If you're the CEO of Twitter then Twitter's worldview should always win. Of course, as CEO you also get to choose what Twitter's worldview is.

[syshum]

>>I’ve certainly seen many calls for the glorification of violence to be limited

Guns was probably a bad choice for Twitter, would have been better for YT as YT has recently cracked down hard on firearms content.

However even on twitter the "the glorification of violence" is very subjective. For example people celebrating the jury verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, who many believe was an attack on the very right to self defense, has been reported by many as "glorification of violence"

Even more recently, I have seen attempts to censor conversation, and video around the shooting / death of Chad Read.

Then you going to have a conservation around Self defense use of guns it will include violence, there is no way around that, if you are going to censor violence then by necessity you have to sensor guns or relegate it to a discussion about hunting only.

[afavour]

> However even on twitter the "the glorification of violence" is very subjective

Sure. Running a company is subjective! That's why we celebrate CEOs rather than try to perfect an objective CEO algorithm that runs in the cloud. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. You could draw the line at "absolutely anything is allowed" but that might not be a wise business decision.

> who many believe

> has been reported by many

> I have seen attempts

I'm sorry but these are all very vague assertions. I don't know what any of us are supposed to do with them.

[syshum]

Yes they are pretty vague when you take them out of context and do not look at the over all statement, if however you read the entire thing it is pretty clear what I am talking about. If you have followed that news event then you would also be more aware of what I was referring to. if you did not follow it you may have a harder time with the context but I think it is still pretty clear