Yeah, fuck society, fuck the world, fuck the future, just give me all the money you losers!
Like I said, you're just obsessed with a word and completely unable or unwilling to see the differences between wildly different situations. You claim to be smart but we can all see you really struggling with this.
Words have meanings, and you guys constantly trying to change the meaning of the words is part of the game.
That's a bold claim groomer (coz that's a just a generic right wing insult now right? It doesn't actually mean anything).
Words also have context, and censorship is a word almost exclusively associated, negatively, with the actions of governments, state media and parties with the capacity to cause actual harm. Calling moderation on a privately-owned SM site censorship is hyperbolic nonsense that nearly always comes from people butthurt about not being able to abuse and harass people online. You're not being preventing from posting elsewhere so it's a grotesque abuse of a word that should be reserved for situations more serious that your hurt fee-fees.
CEOs don’t typically head up crisis response teams.
Rewording this slightly, typical CEO's don’t head up crisis response teams. But I think we all know Elon would absolutely have a lot to say.
Baghdad Bob says "Dial it back a bit bro..."
Who wants fashion gossip on TechDirt?
How on earth do you confuse signs of impairment with fashion?
...Elon fired the censorship team that suppressed "political" views...
Had the cops been able to de-escalate (like many cops do day in and day out), you would never have known about it.
Seems pretty clear they didn't even try. The fact that the dog handler even approached the victim with a clearly aggressive dog is the exact opposite of de-escalation.
She wanted to harm herself and resisting the police was a very good way to do it.
She was suicidal, not masochistic. Wanting to kill yourself is NOT wanting to be assaulted and injured by cops.
They could have tackled her to the ground, tased her, maced her, twisted her arms behind her back, all of which would have been painful.
You need a moment to clean yourself up...?
Had they sicced the dog on her to prevent her from running into a burning house, you would still view the cops as negligent.
Ridiculous hypotheticals do not strengthen your argument.
When you stab someone with a pencil...
Nobody was stabbed.
Many schools have padded rooms...
Gonna have to call BS on that one.
Remind us where the word "stab" was used in the story...
That’s very, very rarely true.
Really? Like, almost never? Well then...
Lets have no restrictions on how construction sites operate. We'll build faster then right?
Let's have no restrictions on how food is produced. We'll have more food then right?
Let's have no restrictions on how cars are mass-produced. They'll be faster and cheaper then right?
You are not a serious person.
So actually it's just the word you're obsessed with, not the real world consequences of speech limitations enacted (or not) by different parties or under different circumstances.
You are not a serious person...
The least restricted way of doing things is never the best way. It's why we have things like safety regulations. The nett result of having no restrictions is less of what we actually want. It's a concept most people come to understand once they reach adulthood and spend some time out in the real world.
No, “censorship isn’t free speech”, seriously that’s the dumbest thing.
It's inarguable that unrestricted speech on SM platforms results in fewer people speaking on the platform, because the noisy deplorables (yeah I went there) drive people away. So what's more important to you; unrestricted speech or more people participating in speech? I'd argue that latter is actually beneficial to society and the hoping for the former is just naive and unrealistic.
And no, its not any better when you call it “moderation” or “trust and safety” or whatever else.
It's almost like the concepts of moderation, trust and safety are new to you, as opposed to fairly basic and desirable human behaviors. Applying them to social media doesn't change that.
Nor has twitter become some hatespeech hellscape (despite hatespeech absolutely being free speech) that’s just made up nonsense.
I can only assume you think that way because the hate speech is not being directed at you. If you weren't so self-centred you'd understand that your lived experience is different to others. And whether or not hate speech should be considered free speech, most people don't want a SM site full of it, so they (and advertisers) will leave. If you want another 4chan, just be honest and say that.
This is part of why media matters absolutely should be sued.
So YOU should be able to say anything you want but anybody who says stuff you don't like, even if factually correct, should get sued. Can you even try to justify that hypocritical nonsense?
I used to be an avid reader of Techdirt.
No you didn't.
Pointing at another country's cops facing accountability for excessive force causing death is not the flex you think it is.
Shockingly police officers don’t want to die whereas people trying to commit suicide do. So it is very convenient for the person who wants to die to simply threaten an armed police officer with death. Part of a police officers training is to not get murdered since that makes it very hard on their families.
Have you consider the fact that suicide-by-cop is only a thing because most people know how easy is it to get a cop to violently over-react? Don't blame suicidal people for the fact that cops appear to be trained to shoot anything that moves, and most seem to think "de-escalation" means going down an escalator.
Again though, you're talking about a completely different situation than what happened here, and don't seem to have much to say about using an attack dog on an unarmed non-violent person. The deflection is pretty obvious.
this is biggest lie liberals tell.
And this is biggest straw man argument conservatives tell.