Online discourse was fine in 2016...... When outlandish bullshit was being taken down, it suddenly was an issue. Whenn CNN got to liberal, cons hailed FOX news and then OAN and Newsmaxx... it is a free market and we all know that cons are the most frequent posters on FB so change the diaper and let's move on.
Maybe FB is more a place to whine for cons and they don't like having less access... all trump did was post whines about losing.
Facebook does remove posts... per the articles I read. You would think you would read the news, do a search or have some evidence of your statements before getting sanctimonious. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-lifts-ban-posts-claiming-covid-19-man/story?id=77931433 Facebook will no longer remove posts that claim COVID-19 was man-made in recognition of the reignited debate about the virus's origins, a company spokesperson told ABC News. "In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made from our apps," a Facebook company spokesperson said in a statement. "We're continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge." .... Facebook's shift in policy Wednesday marks a notable reversal of what was a recent add to their list of misleading health claims. In February, Facebook announced that it had expanded the list of "false claims" it would remove from its platforms to include "additional debunked" statements about COVID-19 -- including that COVID is "man-made or manufactured."
I'm also going to take you at your word, without fact checking you. I gave my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. I did mentioned that; but I guess I should have made it clear that it applied to my whole post, and not just one sentenced. When I post facts, I 99% of the time support them with cites. Obviously, I don't really mess with FB. True, I could have been proactive and researched it. I guess I didn't give enough fucks. But I do appreciate your cites. But please, don't let me make you feel inferior.
making a show of being superior while being wrong is what I found worth noting. I am not actually commenting on moral superiority. You may be for all I know.
You're easily impressed if you thought that was a show. I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again. The likelihood of me being wrong is, again, directly and inversely correlated to the number of fucks I give about the topic at hand. Unlike most here, I'm not afraid to admit being wrong. Likewise, I too have no idea which of us is morally superiority, if such a thing exists in a non-religious sense. In a religious sense, I'm not qualified to call it.
Maybe this is because Twitter differentiates between countries attempting to oppress people and wannabe dictators attempting to overthrow democratic countries. You really should learn the difference.
Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society. hmmmm......Oh, so you think that Twitter should selectively and subjectively apply the standard of an essential human right in modern society. So, it is an essential human right to only the people that Twitter subjectively decides should have that right. Therefore, you are completely okay with Twitter deciding who gets human rights and who doesn't? What is your definition of an "essential human right"?
You have the right to an open Internet. You don't have the right to tell a private company what to do. If you don't like Twitter's moderation decisions then go start your own private company where people can interact. The open internet will ensure that people can reach your website.