deleted by creator

Name checks out

I would like to see proof lf this.

Can never seem to understand this reasoning. Musk seems to largely have solved the censorship problem on twitter, which could be regarded as a vital piece of modern dempcracy (along with the rest of the internet, which mostly suffer from said censorship).

While at it he weeded out some traitors, who actively sabotaged during this period. Im well aware that corporate takeovers arent something “good”, but this one actually seems to make free speech a first class value.

This censorship is imposed by advertisers, which is somehow celebrated. Were talking disney, coca cola, whatever… These all want to control what you can or can not hear, and people are celebrating it?

The proper response to advertisers trying to co trol democracy is absolutely “go fuck yourself”, this should be the norm.

Not extreme at all. You have all the right to think what you want, but let others decide for themself.

Or, you know… Just dont listen to the song if you dont like it?

all you ever get is bad faith debate

My fellow homosapien, the question is framed in the baddest faith imaginable.

Blockchain dev here. This is false. Blockchain ledgers are in many ways more real than fiat.

Blockchain tends to attract very shitty people, however. Loaning money that doesent exist is a fiat problem. In fact, its the point of fiat.

Keep the rules to a minimum, and attempt to refer to local law as a guideline. Using slurs are not illegal. Humans are imperfect.

Exiles in isolated pools is what breeds extremism.

Also, realize that you and everyone else are unfit for power. Power should be distributed.

ISS Space station final upgrade

You gimuyd are on some wikd shit im history

Yes. Exactly. How refreshing to hear.

Sounds an awful lot like groupthink to me. Having differentiating takes is the point of philosophy.

In a sort of snarky way one might even say that studying it defeats the purpose, because of pollution and all that.

How about telling the user what is going on?

Weak attidude grounded in jealousy.

Sure. Although ‘tolerance’ here needs stricter defition. I would argue that the proponents of censorship are few. The victim is discourse itself, and by extent, regular imperfect people.

Absolutely. Except that the world is more complex, and there is no right answer.

The issue is not that people choose to distance themselves from the conversation.

The issue is that a powerful select few control what you do or do not hear.

Ever think about where these people come from? Isolation.

The mass censorship strategies of today only serves to divide the extremes. It fosters friction.

In my view, a sane (sanest?) policy would be to use the law as a framework of what is acceptable.

Getting billionares to silence people we do not like is not virtuous, whether it be media smear canpaigns or deplatforming.

We should care about free speech on our platforms. It is the cornerstone of civilization.

I see op is fluent is stroke, much impress

Will definately take a look, thanks.