[flagged]
Are you not OK with that example of speech though? Dangerous speech seems to make you uncomfortable no?
Who is "we"? I sure as hell haven't decided that. The supreme court hasn't either, unlike in the examples you mention.
And my only discomfort with your example sprung from its severe lack of adroitness. My prior response could be roughly translated to "try harder".
^ https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
Idk why you all have this idea that policy is being made on twitter. How many local politicians did you talk to?
My argument, as it has been this entire thread, is that the Government should not be pressuring companies to prohibit such discussions. Since you asked, I recommend you respond with a counterargument supporting the Governments prohibition of the linked content.
That said, this is already too much beating of a dead thread for me. I don't expect to be able to convince you that the Government shouldn't be in control of how people are allowed to talk, and you certainly wont convince me of the opposite.
Good day.
> Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet,
Which then was reviewed by some support staff. This is actually all in the article
What you read is misinformation designed to muddy the water and get you riled up by making this look partisan. You and others are falling for it. This article is intentially being emotional like this.
Do you think the "support staff" were acting of their own volition, or did they have orders from above about how content should be handled? You don't need to answer this - the article shows they had a flow chart to follow, created by the same folks who were being pressured by the White House.
> Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, and that it received many “tattles” (what the system amusingly called reports from users). That triggered a manual review by a human who—despite the tweet showing actual CDC data—nevertheless labeled it “misleading.”
The language this article uses is inflammatory. There's a few points to make here, that its highly emotional on purpose. The use of the word tattles, the '—despite the tweet showing actual CDC data—nevertheless' phrasing adding in biased commentary.
Its also not totally clear, I think because its trying to create outrage, the review was triggered from the reports received. Which then just had some support staff label it. The initial reporting has nothing to do with government. And we don't know how the labeling works. This article makes a lot of leaps and dumps information.
Im done with this now, I really think you should step back and ask your self, if you are getting caught up in partisan articles like this, how can you really cut through the information being thrown around about more complex topics.
Apparently Kulldorff from this article went on to work in right wing politics after becoming a vocal anti lockdown and vaccine guy. I dont think he is an unbiased source.