> twitter can ban whomever they like, for whatever reason, except for the usual exceptions (religion, race etc).
I think we either need to get rid of those exceptions or add more. I'm not sure which.
I think we either need to get rid of those exceptions or add more. I'm not sure which.
I find it a rather arbitrary standard I so often encounter.
How would banning for religion be different than banning for any other opinion? So long as an opinion asserts the existence of a higher being it is inviolate? All I need to claim to be unbannable for saying that vaccines cause cancer is simply add “This was told to me by the almighty creator Zefron of Zefronism” and that small differences turns an ordinary falsehood into a religion?
Can I deny the holocaust in Germany by simply making it a tenant of a religion?
It seems awfully arbitrary to me.
Think about the adhoc communal living options that are available to people who want to live in intentional community in SF, consider side by side people like conservative Mennonite churchgoers in rural Illinois.
The idea is not that anyone can or should pull an L Ron, the point is that those identity factors are more or less taken to be extraneous of someone's behavior
They are default bad reasons to ban someone, not an exhaustive list, just good rules of thumb