[ceejayoz]

Obviously.

"Bothsidesism" posits that the two sides are broadly similar. The last few years have debunked that concept pretty conclusively.

[staticautomatic]

It also posits that there are only two sides.

[ceejayoz]

In the US, that is functionally the case, and likely to remain that way.

[icapybara]

Yes but OP made a good point (model censorship going too far in the name of "woke"ness) and you shut them down.

[ceejayoz]

Yes, because it's disingenuous bullshit.

As it was with "campus protests violate free speech!" from the folks who immediately turned around and banned voluntary diversity programs at universities.

As it was with "Twitter bans violate free speech" from the folks who bought it and banned @elonjet and the word cisgender.

[icapybara]

Are people not allowed to suggest models may be too censored? Is that idea censored?

[ceejayoz]

Am I not allowed to suggest it's disingenuous bullshit to pull the "both sides" thing?

[icapybara]

That's right. It was uncalled for. I see no evidence OP was making a bad faith argument, but you assumed that right away.

[AlecSchueler]

Because it's incredibly frustrating to see the government remove women and men of colour from government websites, deleting climate data, and sending out violent mobs to round people up while people sit around saying their main worry is that regulatory bodies will move to make things "too woke." There's no "woke" equivalent to the insanity being acted out by the US administration.