Yeah, no, it's exactly what your argument is. You recognize that legally Twitter isn't required to have legality be the ban standard, but you argue that they should (not just can) use that standard.
No. That was technically Musk's argument, not mine. Mine was merely that I don't see a problem if Musk decides to actually follow through with it, nor do I understand the butthurt reaction at the mere idea of it from the pseudo-progressive gang.
Now that's a silly argument and set seeking (if you believed legality should be the guidelines you would think that Twitter should use any standard it wants that doesn't violate the law)
That is in fact what I actually said before, not just thought. Even in this thread. And which you even quoted before. Alzheimers'? To repeat: I don't see a problem with their using any standard it wants. In fact, I said I don't understand those going butthurt at such a change.
but it isn't even workable. Trump wasn't arrested for inciting violence, yet he did, and he used Twitter. 'Oh but he could have done it without Twitter' is meaningless. Twitter has damn good reason to not want to be involved with that crap, and with Myanmar disinformation campaigns, and Russian spammers. 'But they haven't won a court case' is so beside the point to anyone but you and not even to you when it doesn't suit you.
The whole reason why there was an investigation was that yes, it's illegal to incite violence. So no, you don't get to use that as "awful but lawful".
Saying Twitter should let back and not ban in the future people whose speech isn't literally illegal is arguing they should use an 'awful but lawful is ok' standard. That's just what the words mean.
Technically I only said I see no problem if it does. But hey...
Anyway... The point is that we already have a democracy where the people decided that it's not awful at all to allow free speech. It's in fact a lot better on the whole than the alternative. Again: we in fact even put it on the lists of basic human rights of the UN, EU, etc. Just because some fanboy on the internet gets butthurt at the very idea that other opinions can be heard than what he wants to hear, doesn't make it actually "awful".
You don't get to just postulate it as "awful" and then just act as if it's an axiom because you said so.
You won't follow reason nor evidence, so no, I won't. That's not a failure on my part.
Ah yes, so you reach for another of the standard 'excuse' of illogical woowoo peddlers. Why doesn't it surprise me any more?
No, again, you can complain about the other's standards or acceptance of logic AFTER you've actually used good logic, including actually meeting your burden of proof, not INSTEAD of. Not when all you have are your own bare postulates.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens.
So, no, it's still YOUR failure not mine. And your keeping on flailing and dodging isn't changing any of that.
...oh yeah. You're just doing this all to attack the mean people who don't want Nazis and harassers to take over the place they like to talk. It isn't about echo chambers,
Really? It's not about an "echo chamber", you just actually want to go there and hear as little as possible of other groups' opinions in there? (Oh yeah, and great work calling them nazis and harassers if you disagree with them.) I'm pretty sure that's exactly what is meant by "
echo chamber," silly. Yes, wanting the place you want to talk to be free of those other groups also talking there is by definition asking for an echo chamber.
Twitter already privileged right wing sources and went light on moderation of them. This fact remains no matter how many times you want to ignore it and cut it out.
All you're saying there is that you didn't get a perfect echo chamber. It doesn't change your apparently wanting one.
Straw man it all you like, they're never going to validate it for you.
It's not a strawman when you've actually written several message arguing exactly against freedom of speech as something "awful".
'Strawman', just like the other fallacies, have clear definitions. They're not buzzwords that you too can throw around to sound cool on the Internet
