No, the only way you can be a terrorist is to physically attack someone. I refuse to adhere to the fascist ideology that states that speech must be policed because bad people exist.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but your opinion that moderation = censorship is factually incorrect, and there are valid reasons for ensuring that some users aren’t platformed.
You’re wrong, moderation and censorship are the same thing. People just call censorship they like “moderation”, and they call moderation that they don’t like “censorship”.
Huh? Terrorism is violent, there’s nothing that the First Amendment can do to protect them…
What terrorists are you talking about?
No, terrorism is not just limited to violence. It’s about messaging too, and it’s important not to platform people who adhere to terrorist ideologies.
No, the only way you can be a terrorist is to physically attack someone. I refuse to adhere to the fascist ideology that states that speech must be policed because bad people exist.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but your opinion that moderation = censorship is factually incorrect, and there are valid reasons for ensuring that some users aren’t platformed.
You’re wrong, moderation and censorship are the same thing. People just call censorship they like “moderation”, and they call moderation that they don’t like “censorship”.
See: stochastic terrorism
If you’re committing stochastic terrorism you’re complicit in terrorism, but IDK if that actually makes you a terrorist.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stochastic-terrorism
It’s an overused term anyways since people incorrectly use it to refer to “extreme rhetoric” rather than speech that has specifically led to violence.