|
It was about "hate speech" though, not "unpleasant speech", then you'd be right. Stop thinking in us/them, everybody hates someone or something and that's fine. That's not what hate speech is I think. Take one example from the Canadian govmnt: > The bill defines “hate speech” as the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. > These grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/chshc-lcdch/index.h... That's just one "official" definition of many obviously. |
What I find ironic is that BlueSky has many openly anti-Trump posts, while X/Twitter tends to have a significant amount of pro-Trump content. Because many minority and marginalized groups lean anti-Trump, again, these opposing viewpoints naturally clash, often leading to Twitter being labeled as a "hate speech platform". Yet on BlueSky, there’s no problem with people openly criticizing or spreading negativity about pro-Trump people. Since Trump supporters don’t typically fall into minority categories, it seems BlueSky users have the "privilege" to freely bash the Twitter crowd without facing the same scrutiny. Essentially, BlueSky is shielded from the hate speech label despite fostering a different kind of polarized environment.