Attached: 1 image
Bluesky suspending antifascist researchers for sharing publicly available information about literal nazis.
Should be no surprise considering bsky constantly protects nazis, the far right, and all flavors of bigotry at the expense of Palestinians and trans women.
Fortunately, their information already spread so far and wide that at least half of the Blood Tribe nazis lost their jobs following the mass doxx. Chris Pohlhaus, leader of BT, estimated financial losses at over $2 million lol. Happy holidays!
Censorship can be good and ban on personal information sharing prevents witch hunts. Reddit banned it only after it resulted in dead people which is too late in my book.
Your example is people randomly sharing information. That is not the same as a Government entity after following the process outlined in the law, releasing information related to that Government action. We know who is awarded contracts, we know where tax payer money is going to, and so on because of disclosure requirements by Government entities.
When an elected entity has acted in a manner accordance to law, that action ought to reasonably disclose the subject of that action. That’s not to say 100% it always must be this way, but this is why we allow the public to comment on changes to those disclosure requirements.
I would like for you to understand, there’s a very fundamental difference between “random people” and “people via a method given power to rule over other people.” That fundamental difference between the two is key to the point here.
Ban on sharing of personal information in social media isn’t intended to stop witch hunts against innocent people, it’s intended to stop witch hunts, period. I’m certain you’d speak different if the roles were reversed and I imagine that won’t take long because most politicians treat judiciary as one of the spoils these days.
Censorship can be good and ban on personal information sharing prevents witch hunts. Reddit banned it only after it resulted in dead people which is too late in my book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi
Your example is people randomly sharing information. That is not the same as a Government entity after following the process outlined in the law, releasing information related to that Government action. We know who is awarded contracts, we know where tax payer money is going to, and so on because of disclosure requirements by Government entities.
When an elected entity has acted in a manner accordance to law, that action ought to reasonably disclose the subject of that action. That’s not to say 100% it always must be this way, but this is why we allow the public to comment on changes to those disclosure requirements.
I would like for you to understand, there’s a very fundamental difference between “random people” and “people via a method given power to rule over other people.” That fundamental difference between the two is key to the point here.
Ban on sharing of personal information in social media isn’t intended to stop witch hunts against innocent people, it’s intended to stop witch hunts, period. I’m certain you’d speak different if the roles were reversed and I imagine that won’t take long because most politicians treat judiciary as one of the spoils these days.