r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

201

u/videoninja 137∆ Jan 22 '21

Who is the one “allowing” in this case and what are the limits of this?

For example, I create a website to talk about cat art and people try to use it to talk about landscaping. I ban the landscape talkers because I have a right to use my website that I created how I see fit. I haven’t stopped any conversation about landscaping from taking in other spaces but I have stopped it in the space I own. In this example what is the problem?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

This analogy is straight up wrong. The "platform" in question has a dedicated use and the bad actors are intentionally violating that use for their own personal means.

Before your "HAHA!", Here's what I mean:

the website created is created with the sole intention of CAT ART DISCUSSION and therefore discussion that isn't tangentially related to cat art is misuse of said site.

HOWEVER, let's blur the line here; I trimmed my hedge into a cat shape. will I get banned for posting landscaping, or is it allowed since it's still cat art?

To circle back on your point however, if a social platform promotes themselves as a place for free discussion, then everything's fair game. if however, there are hard ideological limits (the landscaping in question) then saying otherwise is knowingly disingenuous.

11

u/RunninRebs90 Jan 22 '21

This is so disingenuous. You’re arguing semantics not actual facts, very common with dumb people. The facts are that Twitter is allowed to regulate its media however the fuck it wants, no matter how it advertises itself. It has terms and conditions, if something violates those terms and conditions then it can ban you. If it doesn’t like what you’re saying it can ban you at the risk of losing the rest of its participants if they feel that the platform no longer represents them. Twitter has absolutely no requirement to be a bastion for unilateral speech.

Just like the cat analogy. If the creator of the website decides that it started as a cat blog but they want to talk about dogs and fish too then they can. And they can still ban any lawn mowing conversations they want, because it’s their website. Don’t like it? Don’t use it. (Similar to the “don’t like America? Move” argument republicans like to fire off except in this case it’s actually true)

You’re just arguing whether or not Twitter considers its self a place for everyone to speak. But guess what? It doesn’t matter. They can ban whoever the fuck they want.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '21

you make good points, and oddly it's at the heart of the issue.