Quote:
Originally Posted by cd288
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Except it's being flagged because we're in a highly delicate state as a country where you can't have someone causing tensions to flare based on completely misleading comments that then go viral. I've always generally thought you were a pretty good guy, but gimme a break on this man.
|
Oh thanks! My concern is that "delicate" and "misleading" and all the reasons being articulated about whether someone's opinion should be allowed to circulate are specious.
Like I'm not seeing anything about Matt Walsh's post that's misleading. He's expressing his opinion about the statistical improbability mentioned below, which is documented. And if he's inflaming passions to an undue degree that he deserves to be censored, that's just a matter of opinion. For example I don't think he's doing that at all.
What I wouldn't mind is Twitter's counterpoint. Because it's THEIR opinion about whether something is inflaming or misleading. So if I can't see Matt's post without two extra clicks that's fine but part of that clicking should involve a reasoned explanation why he's misleading or what is factually incorrect. But I don't get that so it's just twitter telling me this guy is a liar but all they're doing is calling him a liar.
I also understand Twitter can do whatever it wants, so I'm not telling them they can't.
I just find it amusing how weak 'some of the content is disputed and might be misleading' is as an explanation. Who is disputing? Are they better or worse than Matt? I don't know. I don't know anything except when I want to read something sometimes the technocrats let me read it and sometimes they seed my mind that I'm about to be lied to by making me take positive physical action to affirm that I understand I am being subjected to operant conditioning.