[cmh89]

That's quite a revisionist history. The early web was heavily moderated, just on a smaller scale.

>Hate to say it, but once the tech elite ( or more like the money elite controlling tech ) started talking about minority, lgbt and women's 'rights', they all started censoring, deplatforming, oppressing.

There's nothing stopping you from creating yet another "free speech" website. They typically fail because what the "tech elite" realize, along with most people, is that "free speech" websites devolve into people spamming racial slurs. Most people don't want to be around that.

>Of course to fight 'hate speech' - whatever that means

There is huge amounts of discourse on hate speech and what it means. There is plenty to read on the subject if you truly don't understand what it means.

>It's like someone or some group flipped a switch and everyone from business to politics started singing a different tune.

There was no switch. As the internet grew and became more diverse, the people who are typically the targets of hateful speech on the internet grew in their ability to influence companies. Back in the early 2000s, women avoided using a microphone because if they did, they would receive abuse or unwanted sexual comments. As the amount of women in video games increased, corporations become focused on the needs of their audience and how to make them feel welcome and buy more games. It's the same story for pretty much every other aspect of tech.

What you're imagining as some conspiracy to "oppress" (lol) you because you can't spam racial slurs or spread race-based conspiracy theories is actually marketing executives realizing that catering to the extremely small "freeze peach" audience that wants to post odious content isn't an actual winning strategy for growing your business.

[smolder]

Tangential, but, nowadays there are many digital spaces where saying "its not ok to hate cis white men" will get you a chorus of people saying "yes it is", followed by the boot.

[aaaaarrrrrfffff]

Very tangential. Those sorts of spaces do exist, and likewise pockets of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogeny all exist too. Hating cis white men for existing isn't something that should be acceptable, and death threats are never okay. And there are stressors that they do face - the suffering of others does not invalidate your own. But at the same time, there are also plenty of spaces mocking and belittling trans people, gay people, black people, and women in general. Those places also spam death threats, only these death threats are a little more credible, a little more real, because there is a history of real, physical violence against all those demographics. At the same time, there are many people who just genuinely don't understand, who were sheltered by the previous generation's willful ignorance, who phrase their questions in a way that looks, at first glance, like another unprompted malicious attack. The violence is why those communities react so strongly to those questions, and why they are so hostile to what is, by all accounts, a reasonable statement. In more closed off digital spaces, where conversation is focused around issues common to those demographics, like the violence or discrimination they've experienced, it might come across as uncaring - if a trans woman is talking about how a cute guy she was talking to at a bar stalked her and tried to beat her after she mentioned that she is trans, and someone chooses that moment to say that it's not okay to hate cis white men, it just comes across as intentionally uncaring, as if that person saw all of the murder, rape, violence, hatred, and discrimination these people experience in daily life, then decided, "Nope, your attitude towards white cis men is the real problem here". Open spaces often use the same heuristic to determine if someone is acting in good faith, but due to being open this tends to catch a lot of people who aren't familiar with the heuristic at play, and only see a perfectly legitimate statement that seems to put everyone in a frenzy. Now this isn't to say that these communities don't take it too far on their own. There are some which engage in doxxing, death threats, and all sorts of terrible behavior, but those communities are not the whole majority, just as the racist, transphobic, misogynistic and homophobic groups aren't the whole of cis white men. In both cases, those groups simply are the loudest.

[smolder]

> Very tangential.

Yeah, sorry.

> if a trans woman is talking about how a cute guy she was talking to at a bar stalked her and tried to beat her after she mentioned that she is trans, and someone chooses that moment to say that it's not okay to hate cis white men

Right, and I've seen that kind of antagonistic use of otherwise fair statements before, too, i.e. with "all lives matter". That's not the kind of situation I'm describing, though. Rather, some people unapologetically bash white cis men with no other context for fun, and then pile on if someone speaks up. It's intentionally toxic trolling. As you point out, every group, oppressed or not, will have some gross behavior in its ranks.

[johnnyanmac]

>if a trans woman is talking about how a cute guy she was talking to at a bar stalked her and tried to beat her after she mentioned that she is trans, and someone chooses that moment to say that it's not okay to hate cis white men, it just comes across as intentionally uncaring

With all due respect, there is a growing trend of loneliness among this generation of young men[0] and these topics are constantly dismissed and blamed on the men. I understand your intent, but empahty over the dating scene is probaly one of the worst examples to give to a male audience. It's expecting empathy from a subject they never give empathy from so what would you expect?

>Now this isn't to say that these communities don't take it too far on their own. There are some which engage in doxxing, death threats, and all sorts of terrible behavior, but those communities are not the whole majority, just as the racist, transphobic, misogynistic and homophobic groups aren't the whole of cis white men. In both cases, those groups simply are the loudest.

but you also just said that minority threats are more legitmate, so even you seem to have some semblance of believing the loud groups that oppress them.

[0]: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-yo...

[cmh89]

Okay? Like I said, people are completely free to build sites that have the moderation preferences they want.

I don't really see how this relates to what I said