It doesn't mean mean much in actual practice, it is more of a philosophy to allow free speech when possible.
Yee yee. It's nearly impossible to draw a straight line from words of another human to actions manifesting in the real world. "Fire" in the crowded theater is one of the few instances where we can reasonably and reliably draw that straight line from A to B.
I'm not saying certain posts weren't hateful. I'm sympathetic to claims that the banning is political since Twitter is still toxic and hateful despite the enforcement. Heck, people who repost family guy or south park memes should be caught in the hate algorithm then
That's why the Fox News website comments always refer to "the 13%" instead of the word they want to use. You ban a "word" and people will find other words.
You just keep playing wack a mole and YOU PERMABAN those that use sly words..... People online are like little kids, you need STRICT rules that are enforced and they will follow them. When they don't ....you take away their platform to speak, and you ban their IP.......at the end of the day the community is better off without them. When I ran the Star Citizen forums we had more than 2m people - now sure some complained that we were too harsh, but we managed to keep the community engaged and kept it relatively happy, let the whiners and complainers move over to reddit, where no one cares what is said.... You don't let people come in and take a dump on your carpet why would you allow them to do that here? DD
I think Clutch would disagree about calling this his home. He wanted to build a community for Rockets fans like himself, but not for himself. It's his baby just as Twitter is Jack's baby. You can argue that Clutchfans is the townhall of Rockets fans and is now bigger than clutch himself. The distinction you are making is purely subjective in my opinion (which of course is subjective).
I think allowing free speech is a good thing. And I think we should be open to critical ideas and not attack people for ideas that are divergent. I think a platform should have the right to prevent hate speech, which has a negative effect on a community as it pushes away a lot of people. So the question is where is that line. The line between being divergent vs subversive? The line between being provocative and dangerous - and by dangerous I mean putting people's health and lives at risk.
There is also the fallacy fallacy fallacy sup? But no really, of course the challenge is not to overdue it. That is where the focus should be.
Just two weeks ago an Army veteran who put herself through college with her own hard work said on LinkedIn that rather than having a taxpayer bailout of student loan debt, everyone should feel honor-bound to pay their own student loans—as she did. This was labeled “hate speech” and was taken down.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons Social Media: Global Comparisons Violence attributed to online hate speech has increased worldwide. Societies confronting the trend must deal with questions of free speech and censorship on widely used tech platforms. Summary Hate speech online has been linked to a global increase in violence toward minorities, including mass shootings, lynchings, and ethnic cleansing. Policies used to curb hate speech risk limiting free speech and are inconsistently enforced. Countries such as the United States grant social media companies broad powers in managing their content and enforcing hate speech rules. Others, including Germany, can force companies to remove posts within certain time periods. ...
Curious how you get that it was hate speech, the article by durvasa shows the problem was she was using a personal page to promote a nonprofit instead of a group page, which is against their TOS. She fixed the error and they put her back up. Why do you have to make something up and lie to try to score points?
In fairness, they did initially tell her she violated their rules on "hate speech". It appears that it was flagged in error. Errors happen, as they acknowledge, and they tell users to appeal if they believe their punishment was mistaken.
