Support NeoGAF

[Kraz]

Lost in the saucy ether.

Are you? What are you trying to articulate?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Are you? What are you trying to articulate?

You're gaslighting on strawman delusions that only now are a revelation to you. Tasty ether.

 

[strange headache]

Those ideas would have proliferated either-way because they all grow from a fundamental lack of faith in government etc.

Social media are communication networks, that's their fundamental purpose. So the argument that they are somehow culpable for spreading ideas is redundant, and in fact the idea that only "approved" ideas be allowed to spread on them is the perverse thing. Because basically that makes them more propaganda/marketing platforms - which is not how they are sold to the public.




Not everyone can be "saved", because not everyone wants to be "saved" even if they have the rational capacity and knowledge to fully interrogate every idea.
You appear to be working from an assumption that there's some inalienable absolute truth waiting to be found about everything. This is a fallacy.



So the answer is to let government and big business feed all of us their particular brand of "truth" by marginalizing and expunging all dissenting opinion?



Define "harm"....

Well, actually here's the problem - You or I don't get to define it, they get to define it.

This is why this stuff has to ultimately be backstopped by the law, not by the whims of corporations or activists.

Give a man a fish or teach him how to fish... Shall we educate the people so they are not too vulnerable, impressionable, etc. or do we just shelter them? Politicians would tell you to shelter them because they are then more easily controllable.


I'm advocating a system that assume that people are human being striving to be better if we give them the choice. It might be a naïve stance, but its the only one that suits me.
I'm not sure about the evidence to the contrary you're talking about , apart in cesspools like twitter, which does n't represent society and the people at all.


You are again advocating for some kind of thought police, and even your broad-based and somewhat unattackable stance "only suppress ideologies that cause harm to others when believed" can be twisted into something used to oppress rather than suppress. One could say US democracy and its ideals caused a lot of pain in many countries throughout the world, therefore we need to stop talking about it.

The whole problem with your position is that you assume such policing is done in good faith by the few who have such power. It is not.

We want our free speech not so we can say whatever we want, but because the alternative is to cede control of the narrative to someone. That someone will not "save the fools" from misinformation, it'll merely select the truths and falsehood it wants others to see, give them whatever context it wishes to.

And this highlights the core of the issue of the current age.

The internet allowed people to express honest opinions. Truly honest unfiltered opinions, both correct and misguided.
These 'intellectual prostitutes' - and the ones above them - cannot control information through their old methods anymore. So in desperation they scatter and scream and coerce.

The division we see today is a conflict between the people who want the old ways back, a controlled narrative unifying people through their mix of truths and falsehoods - and the people who don't, those who tasted the sweet nectar of chaotic truth the internet provided and wants it to stay that way.

Well, there are current players in power using their position and letter agencies to prosecute and attack their opponents. So you're right, looking more and more like a "democracy of rule."

Even more of a reason for anonymity in current year, me thinks.

This is the reason why I frikkin' love this place sometimes. Amazing comments. there's really not much more to add.

 

[strange headache]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "free speech" crusader.

How is being a "free speech crusader" a negative? If that's the case then I can only say, ORATIO VULT!

... being concerned trolled with "but absolute free speech".

Defending free speech is now "concern trolling"? You guys worry me way more than the conspiracy lunatics and holocaust deniers.

 

[Kraz]

You're gaslighting on strawman delusions that only now are a revelation to you. Tasty ether.

Not at all. Absolute free speech was used as cloak to allow access to antivaxxers and other crazies after they were rightfully ostracized for the harm they cause. There were other means of trying to manipulate those that might leave of course.

 

[strange headache]

He knows...

 

[OmegaSupreme]

What would be the more interesting story do you think. Take away all the bias if you can. Twitter continues on flourishing (cesspool that it is) or that it blows up? It doesn't affect my life either way so I'm trying to decide myself.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not at all. Absolute free speech was used as cloak to allow access to antivaxxers and other crazies after they were rightfully ostracized for the harm they cause. There were other means of trying to manipulate those that might leave of course.

Nah, that's just what you want to focus on as you fear monger losing the grip of thought control.

 

[funkygunther]

What would be the more interesting story do you think. Take away all the bias if you can. Twitter continues on flourishing (cesspool that it is) or that it blows up? It doesn't affect my life either way so I'm trying to decide myself.

I'm not sure we can use "continue" here but Twitter flourishing is the most interesting. Status quo or administration is boring.

 

[strange headache]

Absolute free speech was used as cloak to allow access to antivaxxers and other crazies after they were rightfully ostracized for the harm they cause.

So we've now gone from "free speech" to "absolute free speech". You're shifting goalposts because you know your arguments don't work otherwise.

"Absolute free speech" is like "absolute freedom", both are impractical but equally important ideals. "Absolute freedom" would probably result in chaos, but that doesn't mean that we should restrict individual freedom as much as possible.
You are making the same error when it comes to free speech.

 

[Kraz]

Nah, that's just what you want to focus on as you fear monger losing the grip of thought control.

It's the situation as voiced by others. There is no fear mongering, that's just you making stuff up.

 

[Kraz]

So we've now gone from "free speech" to "absolute free speech". You're shifting goalposts because you know your arguments don't work otherwise.

"Absolute free speech" is like "absolute freedom", both are impractical but equally important ideals. "Absolute freedom" would probably result in chaos, but that doesn't mean that we should restrict individual freedom as much as possible.
You are making the same error when it comes to free speech.

People, professionals, businesses would be suckers to stay on and support a service that helps those that threatens their well being and those of others, their values and what they want for the future by being concerned trolled with "but absolute free speech".

Quoted the beginning to help you follow the conversation instead of making things up to do the theater you're doing.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's the situation as voiced by others. There is no fear mongering, that's just you making stuff up.

That means nothing. They have “fact checkers.”

 

[strange headache]

Quoted the beginning to help you follow the conversation instead of making things up to do the theater you're doing.

I've already replied to that part in case you haven't noticed.
Everybody being forced to walk on egg shells while the perpetually offended control the narrative is not a desirable situation for anybody except for the very few grifters who manage to profit from it.

What makes you think that people want to be protected? It's usually a minority of zealots whose arguments have no legs to stand on who take advantage of such systems in order to immunize their views from scrutiny. Most sane people can deal with a bit of friction. Lastly, I don't care about advertiser interests, their motivations are purely profit driven and not reflective of the needs of the people.

If anything, I'm glad that Musk isn't bowing down to f*cking ads. He's got bigger fish to fry than please those who merely seek to shill their crappy new consoomer product. Why advertisers should have a say in any of this is simply beyond me.

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

Well, it's anti-semitism, isn't it. The absolute worst kind. And the consequence of them being allowed to spread the belief that the holocaust never happened is that Jewish people suffer.

You can't possibly think it's okay for people to be allowed to spread that kind of lie on social media.

How do the Jewish people suffer if some lunatic on Twitter denies that the holocaust happened?

 

[EviLore]

I love these videos. He's got a new one.

Thunderfoot is on point with certain subjects, and some of his Elon criticisms elsewhere are valid, e.g., hyperloop, which makes little sense conceptually, but this vid is light on facts and distorted by a whole lot of personal bias.

The stock market is down a ton as a whole, which he fails to address during his constant mentions of Tesla’s falling stock price.

 

[Kraz]

I've already replied to that part in case you haven't noticed.
Everybody being forced to walk on egg shells while the perpetually offended control the narrative is not a desirable situation for anybody except for the very few grifters who manage to profit from it.

What makes you think that people want to be protected? It's usually a minority of zealots whose arguments have no legs to stand on who take advantage of such systems in order to immunize their views from scrutiny. Most sane people can deal with a bit of friction. Lastly, I don't care about advertiser interests, their motivations are purely profit driven and not reflective of the needs of the people.

If anything, I'm glad that Musk isn't bowing down to f*cking ads. He's got bigger fish to fry than please those who merely seek to shill their crappy new consoomer product. Why advertisers should have a say in any of this is simply beyond me.

The minority of zealots were those that were banned from twitter and should have stayed that way. The views were scrutinized and rejected and they just want to argue it over and over again. They were allowed free speech in the ideal sense that they have other places to shout and scream in their loop. The fact that there are many people who stayed, not just advertisers, that want to leave now gives the impression they liked those community standards before they were changed. Obviously some don't want others protected, especially those that want to take advantage of the vulnerable. In a general sense it would go along with the same reason there's regulation in other aspects of advanced civilizations for progress.

 

[Punished Miku]

Thunderfoot is on point with certain subjects, and some of his Elon criticisms elsewhere are valid, e.g., hyperloop, which makes little sense conceptually, but this vid is light on facts and distorted by a whole lot of personal bias.

The stock market is down a ton as a whole, which he fails to address during his constant mentions of Tesla’s falling stock price.

Yeah its pretty clickbaity but some of his older Elon videos discussing previous projects were pretty eye opening. His new Twitter video is not that good. Hadn't watched any thunderf00t for years and watched multiple Elon ones recently when it popped up in my suggestions. I dont watch any Tesla presentations or events so it was kind of shocking and eye opening but take it all with a grain of salt for sure

 

[Nobody_Important]

How do the Jewish people suffer if some lunatic on Twitter denies that the holocaust happened?

Because that hateful lunatic could convince other hateful lunatics to believe his lunacy and as a result you end up with a bunch of bigoted morons believing that one of the worst genocides in human history was a lie and they could eventually take their stupidity out on the Jewish community.


No good comes from allowing that kind of unhinged garbage to spread. Ever.

 

[EviLore]

Because that hateful lunatic could convince other hateful lunatics to believe his lunacy and as a result you end up with a bunch of bigoted morons believing that one of the worst genocides in human history was a lie and they could eventually take their stupidity out on the Jewish community.


No good comes from allowing that kind of unhinged garbage to spread. Ever.

I want to know who the hateful morons are so I know who not to associate with, e.g., Kanye. On the other hand, life is better without all the exposure to hate, anger, and negativity—which is why I stay off Twitter most of the time, incidentally. Prefer that kind of rhetoric gets displaced from mainstream platforms to the fringes where it belongs. There are reasonable standards that most of us can agree to, though.

 

[Nobody_Important]

I want to know who the hateful morons are so I know who not to associate with, e.g., Kanye. On the other hand, life is better without all the exposure to hate, anger, and negativity—which is why I stay off Twitter most of the time, incidentally. Prefer that kind of rhetoric gets displaced from mainstream platforms to the fringes where it belongs. There are reasonable standards that most of us can agree to, though.

I'm of the latter. I want that stuff pushed to the fringes where it belongs. I don't want to have to see it. Lesser nonsense and conspiracies are one thing, but there is a line in my opinion. Holocaust denial and similar hateful conspiracies are several football fields over that line.

 

[Wildebeest]

What would be the more interesting story do you think. Take away all the bias if you can. Twitter continues on flourishing (cesspool that it is) or that it blows up? It doesn't affect my life either way so I'm trying to decide myself.

Neither Twitter failing nor thriving are "interesting stories". The only interesting story is for it to struggle onward with increasingly great controversies so that people defending it have to squirm more and more to spin what is happening.

 

[Punished Miku]

I want to know who the hateful morons are so I know who not to associate with, e.g., Kanye. On the other hand, life is better without all the exposure to hate, anger, and negativity—which is why I stay off Twitter most of the time, incidentally. Prefer that kind of rhetoric gets displaced from mainstream platforms to the fringes where it belongs. There are reasonable standards that most of us can agree to, though.

I used to be a classical free speech purist. And in my heart I still am. A good argument wins over a bad argument and more speech is the answer to disinformation. But I think the unforseen issue is when you put it all online with infinite free distribution, and incentivize the worst through click / ad models. I came to admit a few years ago that the good ideas don't always win against the bad ideas and it meant the death of one of my principles.

Best case scenario, it is the growing pains of a society that is young online. Worst case scenario, it is a permanent and growing problem which requires a more limiting approach to speech to reign in. Time will tell I guess. I'm currently still a pessimist but would love to be wrong.

 

[strange headache]

That's why the WAPO is a literal Musk salt mine right now

 

[Artoris]

I used to be a classical free speech purist. And in my heart I still am. A good argument wins over a bad argument and more speech is the answer to disinformation. But I think the unforseen issue is when you put it all online with infinite free distribution, and incentivize the worst through click / ad models. I came to admit a few years ago that the good ideas don't always win against the bad ideas and it meant the death of one of my principles.

Best case scenario, it is the growing pains of a society that is young online. Worst case scenario, it is a permanent and growing problem which requires a more limiting approach to speech to reign in. Time will tell I guess. I'm currently still a pessimist but would love to be wrong.

It's not miles off what I have been thinking

 

[Moneal]

I used to be a classical free speech purist. And in my heart I still am. A good argument wins over a bad argument and more speech is the answer to disinformation. But I think the unforseen issue is when you put it all online with infinite free distribution, and incentivize the worst through click / ad models. I came to admit a few years ago that the good ideas don't always win against the bad ideas and it meant the death of one of my principles.

Best case scenario, it is the growing pains of a society that is young online. Worst case scenario, it is a permanent and growing problem which requires a more limiting approach to speech to reign in. Time will tell I guess. I'm currently still a pessimist but would love to be wrong.

My problem with reigning in speech is who gets to decide. You think the civil rights movement would have happened with speech reigned in by the Southern white racists who were in power?

 

[Grechy34]

I love how these left morons on Twitter are telling they're moving to Hive but stay on Twitter in the event that Twitter remains the main social network. Social crusading morons.

 

[strange headache]

Because that hateful lunatic could convince other hateful lunatics to believe his lunacy and as a result you end up with a bunch of bigoted morons believing that one of the worst genocides in human history was a lie and they could eventually take their stupidity out on the Jewish community.

The hateful lunatics aren't the problem, but the people who believe them. Now ask yourself why they are tempted to believe them and you can start making constructive progress in combating misinformation.
From a historical perspective, centralized censorship has never ever worked out for the better as it affects truth benders and truth seekers equally.

400 years ago, the truth was conveyed by those who were branded "hateful lunatics" by society for going against church doctrine. 200 years ago, abolitionists were the fringe opinion. 50 years ago, gay marriage supporters were considered the crazy ones.

What you fail to realize is that progressive ideas are the one most profiting from free speech!

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

Because that hateful lunatic could convince other hateful lunatics to believe his lunacy and as a result you end up with a bunch of bigoted morons believing that one of the worst genocides in human history was a lie and they could eventually take their stupidity out on the Jewish community.


No good comes from allowing that kind of unhinged garbage to spread. Ever.

Yes, we know - it’s no good, it’s bad. And yet, you haven’t answered my question. Let me ask you this, if you want a different question - what’s the concern if some people think the Earth is flat?

 

[Nobody_Important]

The hateful lunatics aren't the problem, but the people who believe them. Now ask yourself why they are tempted to believe them and you can start making constructive progress in combating misinformation.
From a historical perspective, centralized censorship has never ever worked out for the better as it affects truth benders and truth seekers equally.

400 years ago, the truth was conveyed by those who were branded "hateful lunatics" by society for going against church doctrine. 200 years ago, abolitionists were the fringe opinion. 50 years ago, gay marriage supporters were considered the crazy ones.

What you fail to realize is that progressive ideas are the one most profiting from free speech!

Please tell me you aren't comparing censoring Holocaust deniers to slavery abolitionists and supporters of marriage equality

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because that hateful lunatic could convince other hateful lunatics to believe his lunacy and as a result you end up with a bunch of bigoted morons believing that one of the worst genocides in human history was a lie and they could eventually take their stupidity out on the Jewish community.


No good comes from allowing that kind of unhinged garbage to spread. Ever.

Should Muslims be allowed to spread the belief that 72 virgins are waiting for them after death? Should Christians be allowed to say Christ will return? Should kids be taught that Police are hunting based on skin color? Should we be allowed to accuse politicians of being corrupt?

What's good censorship and what bad censorship?

 

[strange headache]

Please tell me you aren't comparing censoring Holocaust deniers to slavery abolitionists and supporters of marriage equality

 

[MayauMiao]

some tees to celebrate when Twitter inevitably goes down

He could sell off the shirt with an extra text added to it:

#StayWokeGoBroke

 

[Nobody_Important]

Yes, we know - it’s no good, it’s bad. And yet, you haven’t answered my question. Let me ask you this, if you want a different question - what’s the concern if some people think the Earth is flat?

There is no concern. Like I said in the post you quoted lesser conspiracies that are relatively harmless are one thing and hateful/dangerous conspiracies are a completely different ballpark and should be treated as such.


If tinfoil nutbags wanna chat about how the earth is flat, that we are in a simulation, or that dinosaurs are fake then they can by all means chat away. I actually find it entertaining. It's why I even follow a few conspiracy accounts on social media. I read that shit sometimes to friends and coworkers for a laugh during lunch breaks or video game sessions when I find a real gem.

But the Holocaust stuff? The conspiracies about how the world is secretly run by a select elite? That all vaccines are deadly or cause autism? That minorities are less human than white people? "The great replacement" bullshit?


All of that can be sent into the sun. It does nothing but stir up division, fear, and violence. It has no place in a civilized society and should not be tolerated on a platform like Twitter.

Should Muslims be allowed to spread the belief that 72 virgins are waiting for them after death? Should Christians be allowed to say Christ will return? Should kids be taught that Police are hunting based on skin color? Should we be allowed to accuse politicians of being corrupt?

What's good censorship and what bad censorship?

See above.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

There is no concern. Like I said in the post you quoted lesser conspiracies that are relatively harmless are one thing and hateful/dangerous conspiracies are a completely different ballpark and should be treated as such.


If tinfoil nutbags wanna chat about how the earth is flat, that we are in a simulation, or that dinosaurs are fake then they can by all means chat away. I actually find it entertaining. It's why I even follow a few conspiracy accounts on social media. I read that shit sometimes to friends and coworkers for a laugh during lunch breaks or video game sessions when I find a real gem.

But the Holocaust stuff? The conspiracies about how the world is secretly run by a select elite? That all vaccines are deadly or cause autism? That minorities are less human than white people? "The great replacement" bullshit?


All of that can be sent into the sun. It does nothing but stir up division, fear, and violence. It has no place in a civilized society and should not be tolerated on a platform like Twitter.



See above.

To be fair when it comes to discussion, maybe people should be held accountable for not going ape shit at stuff too. Cant blame the world for everything.

If someone brings up the Holocaust (I've seen my share of wiki articles or B&W WWII documentaries of people getting recorded live getting killed) I dont go insane. Most people don't either. Unless someone has a big urge to pursue more info, most people wont even care about hot topics one bit even if it randomly hit their home page. They'd rather skip over it and check tweets about Sunday NFL games.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

There is no concern. Like I said in the post you quoted lesser conspiracies that are relatively harmless are one thing and hateful/dangerous conspiracies are a completely different ballpark and should be treated as such.


If tinfoil nutbags wanna chat about how the earth is flat, that we are in a simulation, or that dinosaurs are fake then they can by all means chat away. I actually find it entertaining. It's why I even follow a few conspiracy accounts on social media. I read that shit sometimes to friends and coworkers for a laugh during lunch breaks or video game sessions when I find a real gem.

But the Holocaust stuff? The conspiracies about how the world is secretly run by a select elite? That all vaccines are deadly or cause autism? That minorities are less human than white people? "The great replacement" bullshit?


All of that can be sent into the sun. It does nothing but stir up division, fear, and violence. It has no place in a civilized society and should not be tolerated on a platform like Twitter.



See above.

So when 25 people died at BLM riots across the country (+ billions in property damage) in 2020 because the media obsessed over an individual story rather than nationwide statistics...it was...harmless?

That uh...makes sense to you?

 

[Nobody_Important]

So when 25 people died at BLM riots across the country (+ billions in property damage) in 2020 because the media obsessed over an individual story rather than nationwide statistics...it was...harmless?

That uh...makes sense to you?

What are you even talking about? I'm talking about hateful/dangerous conspiracies. Ludicrous ideas that are factually untrue being spread around that could result in mistreatment, abuse, health issues, racism, or violence towards others. That's it.


You are talking about something ENTIRELY different and something that is way too close to politics for me to comment on.

 

[bender]

Thunderfoot is on point with certain subjects, and some of his Elon criticisms elsewhere are valid, e.g., hyperloop, which makes little sense conceptually, but this vid is light on facts and distorted by a whole lot of personal bias.

The stock market is down a ton as a whole, which he fails to address during his constant mentions of Tesla’s falling stock price.

thunderf00t for science, but not economics. That said, no matter the market, dumping Tesla stock was always going to have a negative effect.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

What are you even talking about? I'm talking about hateful/dangerous conspiracies. Ludicrous ideas that are factually untrue being spread around that could result in mistreatment, abuse, health issues, racism, or violence towards others. That's it.


You are talking about something ENTIRELY different and something that is way too close to politics for me to comment on.

The conspiracy in question...white people are hiding their racism now. Police need to be defunded because they're hunting people of color.

The lizard people pedophile Ring in a pizza place may be more insane, but the blueAnon conspiracies seem to produce exponentially more death and destruction.

Edit: Getting cold feet when confronted with leftwing conspiracy theories is not transparent at all.

 

[strange headache]

So we're now just brushing all censorship issues aside because of Holocaust denial?

What are you even talking about? I'm talking about hateful/dangerous conspiracies. Ludicrous ideas that are factually untrue being spread around that could result in mistreatment, abuse, health issues, racism, or violence towards others. That's it.

I find plenty of your opinions ludicrous and borderline dangerous to society. Doesn't mean I want you banned from speaking.

 

[dr_octagon]

All the mainstream media can jump off a bridge for claiming a seized laptop, corruption and bribery was not a story or worth investigating. What a joke.

 

[Nobody_Important]

The conspiracy in question...white people are hiding their racism now. Police need to be defunded because they're hunting people of color.

The lizard people pedophile Ring in a pizza place may be more insane, but the blueAnon conspiracies seem to produce exponentially more death and destruction.

Edit: Getting cold feet when confronted with leftwing conspiracy theories is not transparent at all.

You can pretend it has to do with Left Wing whatever all you want. I'm just not gonna risk a ban because you have an axe to grind. So if you want to stick to the kind of dangerous/hateful conspiracies that the discussion was originally about then let's do it.


But if you are going to turn this into a Left vs Right thing I'm out.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You can pretend it has to do with Left Wing whatever all you want. I'm just not gonna risk a ban because you have an axe to grind. So if you want to stick to the kind of dangerous/hateful conspiracies that the discussion was originally about then let's do it.


But if you are going to turn this into a Left vs Right thing I'm out.

Wait...we're not allowed to talk about all hateful and dangerous conspiracy theories and their relationship to censorship? Only the one's you want to?

There's always a kid who takes his ball and goes home when the game isn't going his way. Don't be that kid.

 

[bender]

I'm talking about hateful/dangerous conspiracies. Ludicrous ideas that are factually untrue being spread around that could result in mistreatment, abuse, health issues, racism, or violence towards others. That's it.

Who gets to be the arbiter of truth though? I don't expect you to have answers, I know I don't.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Who gets to be the arbiter of truth though? I don't expect you to have answers, I know I don't.

Reality is the arbiter of truth. All the conspiracies I listed are factually incorrect and can lead to dangerous consequences.

Wait...we're not allowed to talk about all hateful and dangerous conspiracy theories and their relationship to censorship? Only the one's you want to?

There's always a kid who takes his ball and goes home when the game isn't going his way. Don't be that kid.

No I'm saying I won't discuss conspiracies that are politics related or get into the Left vs Right territory for obvious reasons.

If you want to get into more conspiracies that don't get close to the politics rule then we can do that though.

 

[Moneal]

Reality is the arbiter of truth. All the conspiracies I listed are factually incorrect and can lead to dangerous consequences.

No I'm saying I won't discuss conspiracies that are politics related or get into the Left vs Right territory for obvious reasons.

If you want to get into more conspiracies that don't get close to the politics rule then we can do that though.

How bout the gulf of Tonkin

 

[LegendOfKage]

You can pretend it has to do with Left Wing whatever all you want. I'm just not gonna risk a ban because you have an axe to grind. So if you want to stick to the kind of dangerous/hateful conspiracies that the discussion was originally about then let's do it.


But if you are going to turn this into a Left vs Right thing I'm out.

Correct, being against free speech isn't a left / right thing. It's an authoritarian thing. And with the world being as polarized as it is, the best trick authoritarians could pull is to get people to view free speech as a left / right thing. To everyone reading this, don't fall for it. If any party seems to value free speech more than another, that's because they're not currently in power, and a study of history will generally prove it. I would strongly advise those who support free speech to remember this, and to celebrate people on all sides who understand its history and value its importance.




As was posted earlier in the thread, you can't get from there to here without free speech.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[bender]

Reality is the arbiter of truth. All the conspiracies I listed are factually incorrect and can lead to dangerous consequences.

Reality doesn't enact moderation policies, humans do and humans have built in biases.

 

[Nobody_Important]

How bout the gulf of Tonkin

What about it?