[krapp]

You're not being persecuted by state actors. Your views, as far as I can tell, aren't even that heterodox.

But trying to derail a thread about an actual dissident to focus on cancel culture and deplatforming is obnoxious and worth the crits you're taking, IMO. If that serves some dark CIA agenda, I guess I'll have to take that risk.

[trhr]

It's not derailing, you're just too interested in playing political football to understand the worldwide implications of these platforms handling moderation.

The U.S. Constitution grants some of the strongest guarantees of free speech in the world. Most other nations have laws limiting speech that would violate our Constitution. Forcing these platforms to play by our Constitution is a big win for the entire world, because Facebook routinely over-moderates topics of public interest in places like Iran, too.

https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-P93JPX02/ https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-2PJ00L4T/

They are censoring people _everywhere_, but American snowflakes would rather protect their sensitive ears from unpopular opinions than allow everyone to speak freely everywhere in the world.

[krapp]

Forcing Facebook et al to become nationalized so they can't legally moderate content as they wish wouldn't somehow lead to an intellectual revolution in Iran - authoritarian governments already block Facebook and other Western platforms, and if they didn't, those governments would still insist that they follow local laws (including censorship laws.) So we would be flooded with Iranian propaganda, anti-semitic memes and shit that we couldn't legally stop, while Iran would still be persecuting dissidents.

[trhr]

In other words, "Free speech doesn't always help so free speech can never help."

Look, we're not gonna find common ground on this. We'll just have to build a new, decentralized internet, and then you can keep Facebook.