Denying the Holocaust = bad
Tiannemen square protests = good
Making these decisions is not impossible and saying we just can’t decide does not track with me as a valid argument.
People can tell the difference between Tiannemen and terrorism when you give them the info to do so. You don’t need to show someone nazis and Holocaust denial so they know it exists.
I understand the position you take, so don’t be so condescending about “well what would a Chinese person think”. You’re entirely missing my point.
Or, you know, unless they happen to ban you for absolutely no reason.
There are hundreds of tough questions, even if you don’t find any of those difficult to adjudicate (whether they can be discussed and examined).
I fall pretty strongly on the “the government shall let everyone discuss everything” side (yes, including Nazi rhetoric and being a racist sphincter), because it’s too easy for me to imagine the danger of leaving the government in the business of judging which thoughts and speech are categorically “acceptable for society”.
Society can do that better than the government can, IMO.
Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for violence over the telephone? Not rhetorical; we need to allow someone to advocate for violence over the telephone so we neither have to monitor all phone calls nor come up with and administrate a corporate definition of violence.
> On the other hand, I want to see the Tiannemen Square massacre.
A patriotic Chinese person asks: Why do we need to allow someone to advocate for terrorism on the platform?