Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by srveale on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @03:49PM (#36700675)

They provide commentary too. They certainly have an agenda. They have targeted specific people and organizations, and also groups of people generally. The article writer needed an example of a well-known social media account that fit this description, and accounts that are worse in terms of explicitly encouraging harassment have already been banned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by cubefox on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:06PM (#36700903)

Their only "agenda" is "exposing" and making fun of far-left excesses by simply reposting them. I don't think they have targeted anyone in particular. If the things they repost are damning, they were damning in themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by howinteresting on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:12PM (#36700979)

I expect a full retraction and apology: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36700969

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by cubefox on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @07:05PM (#36702870)

I responded to this but my comments got flagged/censored. Great, everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by howinteresting on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @07:23PM (#36703038)

Still expecting the full retraction and apology on LoTT, along with an additional apology for responding to me pointing out that saying "non-binary isn't real" is hateful by saying that it's a legitimate opinion, and also the irrelevant point that "[t]he view that there are only two sexes is completely mainstream in biology".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by cubefox on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @09:44PM (#36704094)

I don't know what LoTT means. Regarding "non-binary isn't real" that can well refer to sex, which would make it true according to the cited biologist piece. And even "gender", man/woman, he/she, can be legitimately interpreted to refer to sex. In fact, it seems that this is a very common usage of those terms. In no case is this disagreement to be roundly dismissed under the accusation of "hate speech".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by srveale on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:54PM (#36701533)

> I don't think they have targeted anyone in particular.

Then maybe research before commenting? They do this regularly.

> If the things they repost are damning, they were damning in themselves.

The whole context of the account is to "damn" the things they are posting. Sure, if you pick one of their posts at random it'll probably be something that 99% of people agree is wacky, but come on. They have inflammatory commentary, they target specific people, organizations, and groups, they know they influence politics and society and are proud of it. If you need me to, I can spend the time to prove all that, but it's all to say that yes, they are a good example of a social media account to use in OP's article.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough by cubefox on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @05:14PM (#36701776)

The OP article makes it sound as if they are immorally harassing people, not what they are actually doing, at least mainly: exposing things which are damning in themselves.

An analogy: They raise awareness about far-left excesses in a similar way in which the media likes to raise awareness about far-right excesses.

[ Parent | on HN ]