I'm a pragmatist. The reality is that the public at large will not accept any racism in any newly made social media platform. Once the platform is mature and the user base is there, that is when you can incorporate idealism on the platform.
The public won't accept "racism"? Well, let's test your hypothesis and allow total free speech. . . .
How come all uncensored platforms tilt immediately so-called "alt-right"?
It's not the "public" that's afraid of advocating for their own interests and expressing pride in their own group. It's a small dual citizen demographic.
Don't you EVER slander the American public again by projecting the values of a small, paranoid alien group onto Americans. This tiny group mass-murdered 70 million Russians. The KKK? The Southern Poverty Law Center admits that, in over 150 years, even as repugnant a group as the Klan killed about 8,000 people. Sorry, but "white supremacy" isn't a danger to America. If you want to virtue-signal, let's bust out the body-counts and let the numbers tell us who the evil threat to the West is. So, no, sorry: I'm not superimposing their values over AMERICAN values. I don't bow to mass-murderers. I don't let them set the agenda, and I don't allow them to tell me "what's best for the nation".
No, censorship is what's "best for their power".
Tell you what? Let's meet halfway. Let's agree that, if censorship is to be permitted (as you suggest) we censor one tiny, predatory, human-trafficking, mass-murdering group. Strip them of all media control. Deal?
I'm glad he didn't. Torbas seems like a loose cannon.
Any free speech absolutist can be described like that.
Are you a free speech absolutists, or do you believe certain speech should be curtailed?
I'm a pragmatist. The reality is that the public at large will not accept any racism in any newly made social media platform. Once the platform is mature and the user base is there, that is when you can incorporate idealism on the platform.
The public won't accept "racism"? Well, let's test your hypothesis and allow total free speech. . . .
How come all uncensored platforms tilt immediately so-called "alt-right"?
It's not the "public" that's afraid of advocating for their own interests and expressing pride in their own group. It's a small dual citizen demographic.
Don't you EVER slander the American public again by projecting the values of a small, paranoid alien group onto Americans. This tiny group mass-murdered 70 million Russians. The KKK? The Southern Poverty Law Center admits that, in over 150 years, even as repugnant a group as the Klan killed about 8,000 people. Sorry, but "white supremacy" isn't a danger to America. If you want to virtue-signal, let's bust out the body-counts and let the numbers tell us who the evil threat to the West is. So, no, sorry: I'm not superimposing their values over AMERICAN values. I don't bow to mass-murderers. I don't let them set the agenda, and I don't allow them to tell me "what's best for the nation".
No, censorship is what's "best for their power".
Tell you what? Let's meet halfway. Let's agree that, if censorship is to be permitted (as you suggest) we censor one tiny, predatory, human-trafficking, mass-murdering group. Strip them of all media control. Deal?