this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
1110 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
59594 readers
2854 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Censorship for thee, not for me.
I hate this little thought terminating cliche. It's trying to make everything into hypocrisy which it isn't. Say he banned everyone who ever said anything pro Israel...you can fairly apply that rule across all people, and have disparate impacts.
The problem isn't that he's censoring others but not himself, it's that the rule itself is bad on its face.
This is hypocrisy. He called himself a "free speech absolutist" after he bought Twitter. He called it the "digital town square." Ever since then, he's banned anyone who says things he doesn't like and keeps the Nazis. He's absolutely a hypocrite and he should be called out on it.
Man calls himself as a free speech absolutist
Same man buys social media platform
Same man then mass bans people and removes comments when he doesn't like their political leaning or they criticise him/his companies too much
How is that not hypocrisy?
If that is what they said, it would be hypocrisy. The cliche is "X for thee and not for me" so the claimed hypocrisy is that he is censoring others and not himself for saying the same things. That isn't the issue, as you point out the issue is that he is censoring when he said he wouldn't.