• Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

    It’s not that difficult. There’s only two concerns: 1. What’s legal. 2. The private company that owns the service you’re posting.

    The line isn’t that hard to draw. The financial implications will take care of themselves, if Twitter continues to fail to act. Anyone who’s run a community likely knows that letting this stuff fester does not end well.

    1 point
    • Account deleted over 4 years ago

      But that's the thing - They have acted, and clearly their 'line' is different to your 'line' which is where the problem lies. Everyone has different tolerances for this kind of stuff and it's extremely difficult to get a happy middle ground of both free speech and a nice community because of that.

      2 points
      • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

        Their line is objectively wrong, and they are risking the future of their business as a result.

        1 point
        • Account deleted over 4 years ago

          Genuine question: Could you please explain how it is objectively wrong?

          0 points
          • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

            I could try, but I think this article does a better job than I could: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

            1 point
            • Account deleted over 4 years ago

              That article contradicts your point.

              "To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse. It is appropriate, even ethical, to answer force with proportional force"

              That's what I'm saying - twitter's proportional force aligns with what they want to do, which is different from what you want to do, so by definition it isn't objective at all.

              -1 points