Do you have some specific examples that you find equivalently egregious to disrupting an organized protest?

AcerbicZero 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Do you think disrupting an organized protest is inherently egregious?

	▲	estearum 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think that limiting “vanilla” political speech in general is inherently egregious. The boundaries around vanilla are certainly blurry, but I don’t think No Kings comes even remotely close to any of those blurry boundaries.

▲

howunfortunate 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Personally I find censoring all links to the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story a couple weeks before a presidential election to be much, much more egregious.

(To be perfectly clear disrupting protests is also very bad!)

▲

estearum 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

The story that even the New York Post didn’t list an author on, for fear of it being a false story?

I agree this would be even more egregious if it was thought to be a real story, but even the tabloid that published it didn’t think so.

Pretty sure the link suppression was turned off within like a day, right?

▲

howunfortunate 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

What exactly is your argument here? That social media sites should prevent individuals from sharing content without an attributed author?

▲

estearum 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

My argument is that the principle of election non-interference applied to this specific situation can reasonably yield “we should suppress sharing while we figure out what’s going on.”

It was absolutely reasonable to suspect (in the early hours) that a salacious, bombshell story involving stolen documents published on NYPost without a listed author could potentially have been an actual disinformation attack.

Under that set of facts, the “we should try to limit interference in the election” can reasonably yield the behavior that it did yield.

	▲	howunfortunate 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's an absurd and frankly offensive standard, and I fear that you already know that. The same standard could be used to trivially censor literally any information from any outlet. Conservatives could censor all NYTimes articles because they have compelling evidence the NYTimes newsroom is taking money from foreign sources (they are), has a history of releasing false information (they do, all news outlets eventually do), and being biased against conservatives. In fact, your standard would censor precisely the MOST important stories, because these are the most likely to influence elections.