There is no debate here, only wrong definitions of terms being used.
Racism and inciting violence get a pass, but post a woman breast feeding? You're gone in a flash.
The free speech argument has no weight because Facebook already doesn't respect it.
I'm also against censorship.
"Deplatforming" or something similar might be more appropriate here.
I understand the importance of racial justice, but are you saying somehow the global economy (I read that as multinational capitalism) is some vanguard of this principle?
> I understand the importance of racial justice, but are you saying somehow the global economy (I read that as multinational capitalism) is some vanguard of this principle?
This has nothing to do with racial justice. Continued unrest, rioting,etc... Will enable a steeper curve for the 2nd wave of Corona. No bailout or any government measure will help. The US economy will not collapse by itself, jusr like in 2008 it will affect the global economy. This is the 11th hour! Facebook is enabling all this. I understand if they had an unmoderated platform, but they moderate plenty! In the end the consequence is something you must acknowledge at least as a possibility when saying "censor things but not nazis and race war propaganda"
This isn't about censorship,it's about policy. Do you also oppose fact checking? FB does!!
> Besides, the global economy in its current form is completely unsustainable.
So we should let it collapse? And how many wars and famine should be tolerated? I am all for change but not the "watch the world burn" kind of change.
P.S.: Please lookup the meetings between Zuckerberg and republican leadership this year. This is strictly about politics,not censorship.
No idea if this applies to the parent topic, but denying that virtue signalling exists is very strange.
Your parent isn't denying that the term should exist, only saying that the people who most frequently use it are just slinging a pejorative without knowing if the person is offline-virtuous or just online-conspicuous-virtuous.
While that is true, it's still worth pointing out that OP did quit his job, which is more than just virtue signaling.
It turns out that some psychologists have publicly criticized the use of that term as it does belittle people who are actually acting virtuously, in addition to conspicuously posting about it..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling#Criticism
mlk existed when civil rights were not trendy as it now is, therefore he was surely glad free speech existed.
Part of the reason virtue signaling feels wrong is because it's cheap advocacy with no skin in the game, yet those who commit it feel like they've done something. Now, is this really so bad? I read a quote in Stratechery that resonated:
--
"The first problem of being a society of talk, not action, is the inability to even consider hard work as a solution;
The second is a blindness to the real trade-offs at play.
The third, though, is the most sinister of all: if talk is all that matters, then policing talk becomes an end to itself."
--
In this case, it wasn't virtue signalling. He paid the price to stand by his conviction. We may agree or disagree with his position, but we must surely honor his commitment to it.