Not at all. Consider the Statement: 'Nuclear Weapons are entirely Safe' - Is that a True or a False statement? In the sense that we haven't had a 'negligent discharge' of a Nuke and where Nuclear Armed Bombers have crashed, they haven't accidentally detonated - it's True. In the sense that a single ICBM can wipe out all the major population centres of a Country, it's false.
Now, WHO gets to decide which perspective is correct? The answer is that it is up to the Individual to weigh the information and then make their own choice. Then when enough Individuals agree on something, we get a consensus. It is not up to Google, Twitter, Facebook etc. to dictate down to us.
Or perhaps a more relevant example given the Political nature of the discussion:
A Trans-Woman is a Male.
Yeah... The fact you include 4Chan with Facebook and Twitter is grounds enough to dismiss what you are saying as ignorant.
Facebook and Twitter have a long history of Censorship - Tommy Robinson, Alex Jones, Carl Benjamin, Candice Owens etc. Now - I know that you and I disagree on the validity of some of those people, However I'm going to focus on Tommy's banning because it's the most interesting. The Claim from Facebook initially was that he had actively called for the beheading of Muslims.
Now on face value, that's a crime, and absolutely grounds for being kicked off of a platform. However, given Tommy's public profile, we all know that had his verified account said that, it would be within nano-seconds screenshotted, and sent around the usual outrage-rags (Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post, Buzzfeed etc.) as final vindication and proof that he's the horrible racist that they've claimed.
No. Such. Thing. Happened.
Then you've got admission by Facebook personel on a Nordic chat show "Well There isn't one particular post where we can say 'this is the post'" which is a teensy-weensy different from the original claim.
See below for Source (9:55 in case the timestamp doesn't work):
I'll now point to Alex Jones - I don't like him, I think he's a loon, whether you claim he's merely entertainment or he's serious in his conviction - I think he's a Fuckwit.
But.
He has a right to speak, that was removed in a clearly co-ordinated effort by those who simply did not like him.
How about from the Man himself:
"which I fully admit is left, is more left-leaning,"
When asked about Bias in the application of the rules.
That isn't, but shadow-banning conservatives, de-promoting their content etc. is. But more importantly - doing the above is an Editorial action - which negates their claim that they are 'just a service provider'.
Not to mention the above could be considered interfering with an Election, if it was bad when supposedly 'it was the Russians!' doing it, how is it right when it's the Company who hosts the discussion is doing it?
Bookmarks