Kanye clearly has ongoing mental health issues; So although I deplore his comments, I'd rather see them challenged and dismissed as the bullshit they are than simply have the man un-person'd.
Especially as the latter is a sure way to reinforce his (and those who share those beliefs') paranoia.
If his paranoia isn't rational then a rational response won't matter. People have called Kanye on his BS for years.
Folks need to realize these guys don't play under the same rules we do. He can quite literslly do almost anything he wants without much repercussion, save for killing; raping, etc. That kind of freedom changes your perspective and Kanye was already an arrogant guy. He doesn't care about what anyone else says or thinks and he won't be convinced otherwise.
Expunging whole cohorts of people on the basis of party politics isn't moderation. Minimizing dissident opinion isn't moderation. Encouraging tribalism by othering those who don't follow the group-think is not moderation.
Theres not been a shortage of members of both political parties on the platform. Most of the ones who got banned for any significant portion of the time were generally ones who either went to extreme lengths or ones who said or did things that violated the site rules.
So really, are thse folks being others by virtue of people part of a certain group or as a result of their conduct not keeping in line with this term of service? Either way it hardly makes a case for there not to be a terms of service.
So just use the "ignore" button or whatever means is inbuilt in the system.
You do you, but in my eyes when you start demanding that noone else sees what you choose not to, you've crossed the line.
You're once again, ignoring that the site has a responsibility to regulate these things. We all understand dthis and agree with it. If someone started posting CP on Twitter and didn't get banned, we'd be looking to Twitter as culpable. This is well understood. Its the same for anything else that violates the term of service. It isn't on the indivudal users to make sure the site doesn't host that. The host is responsible to control what gets hosted.
Noone's forcing you to do anything. So how about reciprocating that courtesy for the rest of us?
This is the essence of the free speech argument.
Its either that I am forced to be exposed to that content by using Twitter, or by using Twitter THOSE folks are forced to regulate what they say. Why would you put the onus on the people who aren't doing anything wrong, rather than those causing the disruption? You csnt have it both ways.
Twitter isn't a free speech platform where anything goes. For obvious reasons.
Standard practice for autocrats is to define a "threat" that they are uniquely equipped to save the masses from, that they alone have the moral fortitude to make the "hard choices" to solve. That the end justifies the means, so if those few "bad" people have to lose their rights and liberties and lives its all for the greater good.
The road that ends with gulags and extermination camps, begins with people losing their right to speak directly or in defence of other people's truth.
Being banned form Twitter doesn't stop you from speaking your truth. Twitter doesn't have gulags. They do have rules through, just like everyone else does. You can follow those rules or you can face the repurcissions that come with not following them. Which; in the case of Twitter means you have to go elsewhere. Hardly an unlivable situation.
