Joined 7 years ago
They were both wearing helmets.
> Its SIMPLE.....
> Here at Brand New Tube we want our users to enjoy building their own personality up on our platform.
> There are so many additions on the way...including live stream but more of that later.
> Rest assured however, we will not de-platform you, remove your content simply because it may question a particular narrative or upset someone else's point of view.
> Yes we have guidelines and standards but as certain platforms have shown recently, some individuals having their channel removed from certain platforms...we simply would not do that!
> So we say...join our platform and share what you have with the rest of the World.
> Kind Regards
> Team BNT
> Regarding twitter case I feel that it's unfair to classify the issue with a single anecdote. Especially when this anecdote is about notoriously mismanaged, pointless corporation such as twitter.
Evaluating online behavior, which is presented in text, across all languages, is Hard.
It seems clear you didn't watch the video. Pool doesn't present Twitter as a single anecdote, but an example of a larger problem.
Addtionally, it is not clear to me that a platform as large as Twitter can be dismissed as an "anecdote".
The larger problem is people with these positions are not even interested in evaluating other positions, a claim supported by your comment and the down-voters of mine.
An argument could be made that RNC operatives do this because, in fact, they have benefited the most from such efforts.
I don't know why so many people making these conspiracy claims and only consider the single, most obvious party as the one that must be engaging in such actions instead of the party that has actually benefited the most.
This occurs, right now, here on HN, and IMHO it comes from the comments feed, a feature I find only useful to moderators and manipulators. Even the mention of certain topics from even a meta-discussion perspective receives down-votes, sometimes within seconds. This seems further amplified in communities where senior community members are granted super powers.
The reason this episode is relevant to your comment discussion is that Pool presents that there is this paradigm problem where certain policies intended to bring "inclusion" end up excluding something like half of the U.S. population. This paradigm Twitter management is stuck in prevents them from understanding how people outside their paradigm view their actions, and this results in effectively banning a enormous set of the population from popular discourse.
It is hard to evaluate if this is exclusively an American issue because, really, there are so few other countries that speak English.
> Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a binding minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
> Taking actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies and the Terms of Use;
> Working with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases which pose legal or other severe risks; and
> Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes the personal safety of these functionaries.
The first thing they state is creating a universal code established by some hand-picked team.
The second thing discussed is how this code will be enforced.
The third thing discussed is rewriting everything published to be sure it conforms to the new code.
The fourth thing discussed is building a wall around the functionaries. It seems notable they have chosen a word which describes an obtuse rule enforcer.
These activities do not describe the way to create anything "inclusive" of anything that is not in service to some very specific set of viewpoints.
