I'm reminded of https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
"""The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong."""
If alternatives also decide to ban the stuff that Twitter bans, then (at best) that's only appealing to the narrow range of content bad enough to get banned by Twitter, but wouldn't be 'sensibly banned'.
Right now, whenever I see JK Rowling tending on twitter, I get frustrated and I know I won't like what I will read, but I click through anyway.
If it's as easy as you suggest, it's easy to disable the filters and expose yourself to this negative content, even if you know its not nice for you
The only answer I can come up with is that they feel their ability to control engagement completely is more important than user control.
This is literally the solution.
The government can’t choose what I hear, but I have a right to listen to what I want.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/par...
Also, there's this:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen...
They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them.
>Also, there's this:
>https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen...
>They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them.
How did you get the impression that they were "endorsing a coup d'état"? As your article said, they outlined a scenario where that could happen, but I couldn't find anything that's an endorsement of it. If anything, the fact that they quoted stalin by name makes me think they're against it.
Second, because of this:
>If they are (as more than 70% of Republicans believe) certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open & count them?"
"Many people are saying": the classic weasel words. They can endorse this with an appeal to the authority of common knowledge and discuss it as if it's a reasonable hypothetical, all the while maintaining plausible deniability that they're just repeating what "everyone knows". Well, I don't find it plausible.
Read the replies to the tweets. The fascist types definitely interpreted it as Rasmussen agreeing with their position,. The non-fascist types interpreted it the same way. People do not communicate with formal logic. The meaning of speech is the meaning people take from it, not the meaning you would get from dissecting it on a whiteboard.
But it has to be easy. No separate domains or configurations. One shared global state but you can swap out rules.