I was looking to find a list of Subreddits blocking X links, but the title is misleading; the article only lists a random five. I'm sure there are more.
This includes subreddits that have always banned such links (often as part of a "no social media" policy). It does not include a dozen or so that had polls in progress.
If nine people are comfortable sitting down at a table to eat lunch with a Nazi, then there are ten Nazis at that table.
Of course, you could debate just how close Musk's views are to the tenants of National Socialism, but the point is that his rhetoric and actions closely mirror some of the more vile parts of that ideology and could encourage people to act in certain ways that are detrimental to the safety of certain groups.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't split hairs for justifying what has happened, and just delete your Twitter account.
EDIT:
Downvote me all you want; my grandfather didn't watch his countrymen get gunned down on Omaha beach from his US Navy ship for someone to throw Roman salutes at the inauguration of a President.
I think the most telling aspect isn't just the salute as the unwillingness to condemn the ideology that the salute represents. This, taken in addition to his willingness to tolerate fascist rhetoric on social platforms paints a bleak picture.
I think the nazi salutes now put it beyond doubt that he's either a) an actual Nazi b) willing to court actual Nazis to achieve his ends. a) is clearly worse, but b) is still way, way beyond the pale.
>If nine people are comfortable sitting down at a table to eat lunch with a Nazi, then there are ten Nazis at that table.
"If you associate with the untermensch, you are also untermensch."
>Of course, you could debate just how close Musk's views are to the tenants of National Socialism but the point is that his rhetoric and actions closely mirror some of the more vile parts of that ideology and could encourage people to act in certain ways that are detrimental to the safety of certain groups.
"Don't look for context or look too deeply. You are being attacked and in danger. Feel--Don't think. Only feel and act."
>I guess what I'm saying is, don't split hairs for justifying what has happened, and just delete your Twitter account.
"Don't think and do what we tell you."
>Downvote me all you want; my grandfather didn't watch his countrymen get gunned down on Omaha beach from his US Navy ship for someone to throw Roman salutes at the inauguration of a President.
"Succumb to this emotional appeal to patriotism and blood sacrifice to justify why you should stop thinking and unthinkingly do what we tell you to do, now."
Someone is behaving like Joseph Goebbels, but I don't think it's Elon Musk.
Yes Nazis loooove to play games like this, because Nazis thrive in the grey area that is the benefit of the doubt. But we saw the salute, he overplayed his hand. There’s no grey area. If you Nazi salute you are a Nazi, I don’t make the rules. Don’t like it, don’t heil Hitler.
"...[F]or it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
Does this intersect with the net neutrality debate? The FCC's net neutrality rules were focused on ISPs. But is there really a fundamental difference between an ISP and a big internet portal with respect to the value of neutrality?
Net neutrality was designed to ensure that all data on the internet is treated equally by ISPs and governments, regardless of content, user, platform, application, or device. -- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/net-neutrality.asp
Once it would have been considered easier to switch an ISP than a social network, and that justifies different treatment. But the network effect has often proven an insurmountable garden wall for social network users. It's not clear to me that it is logically or ethically consistent to regulate neutrality for one but not the other.
This strikes me as an odd take. Reddit is a platform that allows users to create and moderate forums. Reddit as a platform isn't blocking anything. Individual forum moderators have always had the ability to delete posts for any reason they like. People who don't like the moderation being done in /r/reallyreallycutecats always have the ability to create a new forum /r/reallyreallycutecatsontwitter.
> But is there really a fundamental difference between an ISP and a big internet portal with respect to the value of neutrality?
Everyone is responding that legally, yes, there is.
But you're asking about whether there's a logical difference.
Yes, there still is. Your ISP is the only data pipe into your house; if they don't let certain data in, you literally have no other way to get it. (Other than by using a hotspot on your phone, but that data is also provided by an ISP.
Whereas Reddit is just an aggregator. They collect links. You can get those links from elsewhere - other aggregators, or by directly going to the website, etc.
Saying that Reddit & subreddit mods shouldn't be allowed to block links to twitter is like saying that since the USPS can't refuse to deliver your mail, then the Washington Post should be required to print copies of the New York Times in the middle of their printed edition.
It sounds like you're implying that websites should be forced to host links they don't want to. I really don't think we want to be going down that path.
Even if you treat _reddit_ as like you'd treat, say, Comcast under net neutrality rules (this is kind of what the EU DMA rules do, to some extent, say, though those do not apply to reddit as it is too smol), it doesn't necessarily follow that you would treat /r/cooking or whatever like Comcast under net neutrality rules.
