If we're not saying "it was a bad thing to deplatform him" ā what are we even doing here? nostr:nprofile1qqs8d3c64cayj8canmky0jap0c3fekjpzwsthdhx4cthd4my8c5u47spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7qg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qy3hwumn8ghj7urjdau8jtt90pcx2unfd4jkuapwdah8yetwv3jhytnrdaks0duay6
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxIgWQcI4u3mIMMXBspuOSoyxjt83vxHF8?si=ABlpO0KIxWRyLb0g
š¤ Tracking strings detected and removed!
š Clean URL(s):
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxIgWQcI4u3mIMMXBspuOSoyxjt83vxHF8
ā Removed parts:
?si=ABlpO0KIxWRyLb0g
Thank you good service bot.
You don't need everyone to agree with everyone to understand why we're here.
I had hoped / expected there'd be some minimal consensus about what we're here for, like "systems that allow for deplatforming = bad - let's build systems that make censorship hard"
I am in favor of the historical deplatforming people who are actively promoting the holocaust while it is happening during WWII. You might want to give Hitler and his supporters a platform while they were running death camps. But Iām not. Mass murder is wrong and if jailing them for that mass murder is justified the so is taking away their megaphone.
I am with you on your position that violence and genocide is bad and I wouldn't give them a platform either, but historical cases aside, do you believe we should have protocols that allow for censorship-resistant and deplatforming-resistant public communications?
