@NewRoxFan, I've been laid off, I know what it's like. I'm sympathetic. But celebrating the misfortunes of others is free speech not hate speech.
Like I said, we don't even know what caused the person that started the whole debate having their account temporarily suspended. Its quite possible (likely in fact) that is was a string of things. All we know is that they were found to have violated twitter's rules re: abusive behavior (not "hate speech"). And since I believe twitter is a private business and its "stateless", what is "free speech"? Which again, makes we wonder why people feel the need.
Twitter is the one censoring this "speech" as hate speech. They have a legal department advising them. (talanvor and dachuda pull their legal opinions out of their ass.) I find the speech in question "hateful", which SCWs embrace regularly. I could see where someone would see this speech as hate speech, though I am unsure it reaches the bar of "hate speech" which a legal "term of art". SCWs have been throwing their hate at MSM journalists, like forever. This hateful speech is prejudiced against a group (journalists) and given the current SCW leader says in his campaign rallies this speech could incite violence against said group. This is dancing close to "hate speech" line. I will leave it to lawyers to figure if this speech crosses the line or not. Twitter's legal team have spoken.
btw, I didn't want to imply you were not sympathetic to those being or that have been laid off. If what I wrote suggested that I apologize.
Seems like just last week Twitter was allowing users to dox, threaten, and harass a 16 year old for having smirked.
You've gotta understand though that the kid had the "wrong" politics so that means it's okay to dox or offer sexual favors to anyone who assaults a minor or to call for their death. Yeah, those things are okay, but it's "hate speech" to suggest a "journalist" who was laid off learn to code. Glad we got that cleared up.
If you had read the articles, you would know. Google and Facebook, long story short. Again, should the Federal government step in to prop up this industry?
I agree with you that Twitter can do whatever they want and have no obligation to let people speak. I'm responding, I guess, more to the @No Worries who, imo, overreact to put this sort of speech in the same category we put racial or religious violent animus.
I'm not sure who "you guys" is exactly, but when talking about those who were laid off, some were real journalists, some were not. It's disrespectful to actual journalists to lump them in with opinion writers from Huffington Post and the like.
Buzzfeed is a click bait. NYT and Washington Post are doing well because they rely on paid subscribers and ads. No more #failing NYT.
It implies they don't do the actual job of a journalist anymore, and instead have become the new sharia police of the church of social justice. Or it means they are laid off and aren't journalists anymore.
Oooooh. I wasn't clued in on the significance of "learn to code", seems like they're just gloating like how a bunch of young males would.
Its mocking journalists. for when they wrote a bunch of 'coal miners learn to code' articles to the coal miners being laid off. now journalists get laid off so people tell them to learn to code. They don't like it
These examples are horrible obviously. But where did Twitter say it was "hate speech." I see where Twitter says it violates the Rules. We can discuss/argue about the fairness of Twitter's Rules or their application, but the discussion between JV and NRF about "hate speech" seems like it is based on an overstatement of saying Twitter declared it actual "hate speech." Also, did a bunch of journalists really respond to other layoffs with "learn to code" or was that a more isolated occurrence?
