brux, even though it's true that most racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and anti-Semitism, by its very nature, emanates from the political far-right, I don't think it's helpful to frame a *reasonable* clamp-down on abusive behaviour, lies, doxxing and harassment, as a partisan issue. The truth is, assholes exist across the political spectrum. But also, by framing the need for reasonable monitoring and moderating of media (and, fwiw, even *before* fuckwit Elon Musk took over Twitter, most of my reports/complaints to Twitter regarding anti-Semitic, transphobic and misogynist posts, among other forms of bigotry, were given the brush-off), as an exclusively right-wing problem, rather than a matter of objective principle, you potentially give the right ammunition to say "They're trying to censor us."
When I complain about abusive behaviour on social media, my issue isn't whether the offender is a Trump or Biden supporter (etc). My issue is purely, did the offender say anything that was CLEARLY racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, ableist and so on, and, on a few occasions I felt compelled to report supposedly 'liberal' posters who were attacking GOP women's physical appearance (which, as much as I despise any GOP politician, whatever their gender, should be out-of-bounds, especially for people who identify as 'feminist'). Like I say, it stands to reason that *most* bigots will have far-right sympathies/leanings, but the truth is ALL people are capable of bigotry, and a blanket policy against abusive behaviour is NOT politically partisan, nor should it be.
reply
share
brux (14840)
2 years ago
> I don't think it's helpful to frame a *reasonable* clamp-down on abusive behaviour, lies, doxxing and harassment, as a partisan issue.
Neither do I, especially when it is done by the Right to claim unwarranted victimhood.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
2 years ago
Sure, but when you say this "Twitter and every other social media platform had to develop some response to the constant Right-Wing uncivil behavior, lies, misinformation, disinformation and just all around hate" it makes it seem like a concerted plan to exclusively target the political right. DON'T GIVE THEM THE AMMUNITION.
reply
share
brux (14840)
2 years ago
If it was the Nazi party, or the Muslim Brotherhood and they were being "moderated" would you feel it was wrong to target them, or point them out?
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
2 years ago
I would be loathe to give a platform to the Nazi Party to begin with, but assuming we are allowing them and the Muslim Brotherhood to post on social media, I would treat their posts no different than anyone elses, which is to say, I'd clamp down on ANY egregious racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and so on, rhetoric, wherever it came from. There's a danger in second-guessing people and giving allowances to some individuals and not others. That may be fine within the context of a comedy performance, where irony is expected from a particular comic, but in the context of social media, it makes sense to have a universal policy, so no-one can complain and appeal about 'unfair treatment' and 'double standards', and everyone knows what is and isn't acceptable discourse.
reply
share
brux (14840)
2 years ago
> but assuming we are allowing them and the Muslim Brotherhood to post on social media, I would treat their posts no different than anyone elses
Are you being deliberately dense or what? I just don't think you realize what I am saying.
Of course you don't treat them any different than anyone else for the sake of how you react to their posts ... but it is them and the kind of posts they make that will bring about disproportionate censorship. According to you that makes them persecuted victims.
That is some sick logic.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
2 years ago
You're missing the point/maybe you're being dense.
I'm saying that you censor any egregiously discriminatory post irrespective of whether it's the Muslim Brotherhood or Joe Bloggs who has posted it.
reply
share
brux (14840)
2 years ago
Not just "egregiously discriminatory", whatever that means.
The point is that since it is the far-Right that mostly makes unacceptable posts and gets called on it, they use that to claim bias when there is none.
One other thing that is now common is that the Right-wing gangs that descend on chat-forums will find someone they identify as Left, and all claim a fake problem with this someone's posts an report them until they get suspended or banned.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
2 years ago
The irony is, you cited the Muslim Brotherhood, which aren't by most people's estimation 'far-right' (even though they ironically share many traits, including anti-Semitism and homophobia, with people who are militantly anti-Muslim); so it goes to show that simply saying "We're specifically going to target far-right speech," rather than focus on ANY and ALL discriminatory/hate speech, is possibly not the right approach.
I'm not defending the far-right here. I think they're all a POS, and as I said earlier, I'd be inclined not to give any group specifically representing white supremacy a platform to begin with, but just say that they are allowed to post on a forum, the same as anyone else, my focus would be on targeting ANY and ALL hate speech. The effect rather than the underlying intent (which is usually a subjective consideration) should be the focus, that way, everyone knows what speech is and isn't acceptable, and NO-ONE, regardless of political leaning, is allowed to post certain things that are objectively racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, ableist, and so on.
Now, I suspect MOST of the people who fall foul of such rules WILL BE member of the far-right, but, as I say, the point isn't to target people on the basis of political affiliation. The point is to target *speech* on the basis of the hate it propagates, irrespective of what part of the political spectrum the offender lies on.
reply
share
brux (14840)
2 years ago
Muslim Brotherhood = Fascist Tyranny = Right Wing
> I suspect MOST of the people who fall foul of such rules WILL BE member of the far-right
Other than that, I'm glad you agree ... let's just leave it there.
reply
share