This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Twitter banning the Krassensteins, despite the ongoing accusations of anti-conservative bias at the platform. In first place, it’s Stephen T. Stone responding to an old, tired, incoherent argument that banning people violates “common law”:
Maybe you can answer this question for once.
Let’s say Twitter admins announce tomorrow that Twitter will no longer host a specific type of content. The content is legal and people can post that content anywhere else. But Twitter admins say “we don’t do that here” and ban that content from Twitter anyway.
What law, statute, or “common law” court precedent says Twitter must host content its admins don’t want to host?
(Spoiler: they did not “answer this question for once”.)
In second place, we’ve got an anonymous comment pretty well summing up the situation:
It’s a bad time to be a popular internet platform.
You’re damned if you moderate any accounts (“censorship”).
You’re damned if you don’t moderate accounts.
You’re damned if you fail to moderate the correct accounts according to diametrically opposed opinions.
You’re just all-around damned.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from any moose cow word in response to China’s latest move to use America’s IP obsession against it:
If IP was truly as invaluable as companies claim, they’d keep their manufacturing close to home where they can maintain the upmost control over it. Instead, they keep sending it to lowest bid manufacturers in countries that don’t care about their IP. They want cheap labor and tight IP control, but they can’t have their cake and eat it too. After decades of offshoring, it’s clear that they value cheap labor FAR more than their IP. Apparently it’s worth less to them than the paper a sweatshop laborer’s pay stub is printed on.
In second place, we’ve got a simple anonymous response to the German politician seeking to take action after a bunch of YouTubers told their fans not to vote for her party:
Would she have been as upset if someone saying vote for her party gained as many views on YouTube?
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is another anonymous response to the post about China:
China is stealing our ideas..
..about how to use the fake idea of “intellectual property”. Something must be done!
In second place it’s yet another anonymous commenter, this time on our post about the long copyright saga of Bittersweet Symphony and Richard Ashcroft, responding to a commenter who was “surprised they didn’t buy Ashcroft a dog and shoot it too”:
I think the police hold the copyright on that one…
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a quick exchange from the post about the latest Twitter bans. First, Stephen T. Stone got somewhat confused:
This reads like Twitter moderates activity and not political beliefs. But that can’t be right. Alex Jones said he was targeted for his political beliefs. If we can’t believe him, who can we believe~?
But an anonymous commenter replied and cleared everything up nicely:
It proves his master plan is working. His agents have replaced the chemical in the airplane fumes from the one made with babies to one made with barbecue, so the frogs that Twitter moderators eat at dinnertime are no longer gay.
It’s the only logical explanation for this.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon