lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
My god.
Can you imagine the water cooler convos?
Hey, Phil. Whatcha working on.
Oh, a story on the Election. Taking a new crack at it. Looking at this Pepe thing.
No.
Yeah, going to be really interesting, get into the belly
No. Phil. Don't.
Nah man, it's cool. I'll get to the bottom of it, I'll find the source.
There is no bottom. You are at the edge of the abyss. Back away. Please, Phil. For your children.
**Three months later**
Phil? Phil you ok man?
*huddled under his desk, fetal position and sobbing* Why. Why did nobody warn me. Why. There is no end to the rabbit hole. Oh god Oh god.
Hey, Phil. Whatcha working on.
Oh, a story on the Election. Taking a new crack at it. Looking at this Pepe thing.
No.
Yeah, going to be really interesting, get into the belly
No. Phil. Don't.
Nah man, it's cool. I'll get to the bottom of it, I'll find the source.
There is no bottom. You are at the edge of the abyss. Back away. Please, Phil. For your children.
**Three months later**
Phil? Phil you ok man?
*huddled under his desk, fetal position and sobbing* Feels bad, man... Feels bad, man... Feels bad...
It's Mark Halperin. The show might as well be 4chan live.
That seems unfair... to 4chan. You can get some pretty decent conversation going in several of the 4chan boards, and I'm pretty sure there's a shitload more diversity in there than there has ever been at MSN :P.
Basically, Biddle wants the press to hold Thiel's feet to the fire - either openly disavow Trump, or admit that his "outing" justification for killing Gawker was gooseshit, and his real motivation was to kill a media outlet that was regularly critical of Silicon Valley.
I'm not sure if Sam fucking Biddle is the guy you want to be your standard bearer on women's issues, though
This isn't about women's issues so much as it's about determining if Thiel's big justification for destroying a media outlet was nothing more than a lie. Because if an article on his sexuality justified destroying Gawker, then Trump attacking Machado's should be beyond the pale for Thiel, right?
Also, Politico sums up why our political media sucks in their podcast. A comment I found elsewhere:
This morning I listened to the most recent episode of Politico's Nerdcast 2016, and they answered a listener question in a way that made me legitimately angry.
The caller wondered why the US media dedicate so little space to actual policy positions of candidates, and specifically why there had been very little media coverage--most notably an absence of live television reports--of Clinton's speech on disability rights in Orlando last week. He asked how callers could reasonably be expected to make informed voting decisions when the media don't give them this information.
Everyone on the Politico team agreed this was a worthwhile point. Regarding the disability rights speech, Charlie Mahtesian acknowledged that it could be deemed historic, since to his knowledge no candidate had ever made disability an election season campaign point.
The problem, he said, was that there wasn't much "there there," if you drilled down. At first I thought he meant that she didn't offer any actual policy specifics, which surprised me given Clinton's wonkiness. He seemed to confirm my assumption when he noted that a considerable amount of her talk in Orlando duplicated her regular stump speech... but then he went on to explain that she had also touched on points such as employment law, education policy, and healthcare.
It turns out that the problem wasn't that she didn't have policy proposals. It's that the ones she offered are allegedly things anyone would agree with. They're uncontroversial. The fact that there are presently no (or insufficient) protections for disability rights in several areas would seem to counter this view, but Mahtesian explained that she didn't announce a big bill for spending $X, or make any other exciting proposal that would make for compelling news coverage. These details would make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans, but they didn't make for good TV.
Most importantly, she didn't take this opportunity to push hard against Donald Trump. Even though--as that WSJ link I shared above pointed out--she's mentioned his mocking of the disabled journalist many times, in this case her campaign decided that slamming Trump would detract from the seriousness of the policy matters she wanted to discuss. And this is what cost her, so that large swathes of the voting public never heard what she had to say. She didn't turn it into a fight. According to Politico, this was an understandable decision but a strategic error. It's not the fault of the media: basically, they said anyone who really cares about this stuff can just look it up, it's just not worth serving to the public without a more exciting hook to hang it on. "Historic foregrounding of disability rights" and "hitting hard on the campaign's core message of inclusiveness" just didn't cut it, I guess.
This is also infuriating because I've been hearing from some of my former-Bernie-supporting friends that Clinton has emphasized negative campaigning too much, without discussing positive reasons to vote for her. When she does push those messages, though, the media ignore her because they're "too boring." Meanwhile, they'll stand around for an hour in front of an empty podium at a hotel infomercial waiting for Trump to maybe, possibly say something of note.
I study the media, I work with and around journalists regularly, so I'm not naïve. Doesn't mean I can't still be angry about how they operate, especially when the stakes are so high.
TL;DR: Politico refuses to cover Clinton speaking on her disability rights platform in Orlando because she made it about her policy and vision for America, rather than attacks on Trump.
Also, Politico sums up why our political media sucks in their podcast. A comment I found elsewhere:
This morning I listened to the most recent episode of Politico's Nerdcast 2016, and they answered a listener question in a way that made me legitimately angry.
The caller wondered why the US media dedicate so little space to actual policy positions of candidates, and specifically why there had been very little media coverage--most notably an absence of live television reports--of Clinton's speech on disability rights in Orlando last week. He asked how callers could reasonably be expected to make informed voting decisions when the media don't give them this information.
Everyone on the Politico team agreed this was a worthwhile point. Regarding the disability rights speech, Charlie Mahtesian acknowledged that it could be deemed historic, since to his knowledge no candidate had ever made disability an election season campaign point.
The problem, he said, was that there wasn't much "there there," if you drilled down. At first I thought he meant that she didn't offer any actual policy specifics, which surprised me given Clinton's wonkiness. He seemed to confirm my assumption when he noted that a considerable amount of her talk in Orlando duplicated her regular stump speech... but then he went on to explain that she had also touched on points such as employment law, education policy, and healthcare.
It turns out that the problem wasn't that she didn't have policy proposals. It's that the ones she offered are allegedly things anyone would agree with. They're uncontroversial. The fact that there are presently no (or insufficient) protections for disability rights in several areas would seem to counter this view, but Mahtesian explained that she didn't announce a big bill for spending $X, or make any other exciting proposal that would make for compelling news coverage. These details would make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans, but they didn't make for good TV.
Most importantly, she didn't take this opportunity to push hard against Donald Trump. Even though--as that WSJ link I shared above pointed out--she's mentioned his mocking of the disabled journalist many times, in this case her campaign decided that slamming Trump would detract from the seriousness of the policy matters she wanted to discuss. And this is what cost her, so that large swathes of the voting public never heard what she had to say. She didn't turn it into a fight. According to Politico, this was an understandable decision but a strategic error. It's not the fault of the media: basically, they said anyone who really cares about this stuff can just look it up, it's just not worth serving to the public without a more exciting hook to hang it on. "Historic foregrounding of disability rights" and "hitting hard on the campaign's core message of inclusiveness" just didn't cut it, I guess.
This is also infuriating because I've been hearing from some of my former-Bernie-supporting friends that Clinton has emphasized negative campaigning too much, without discussing positive reasons to vote for her. When she does push those messages, though, the media ignore her because they're "too boring." Meanwhile, they'll stand around for an hour in front of an empty podium at a hotel infomercial waiting for Trump to maybe, possibly say something of note.
I study the media, I work with and around journalists regularly, so I'm not naïve. Doesn't mean I can't still be angry about how they operate, especially when the stakes are so high.
TL;DR: Politico refuses to cover Clinton speaking on her disability rights platform in Orlando because she made it about her policy and vision for America, rather than attacks on Trump.
It's the same old "If it bleeds, it ledes" mentality of the later half of the 20th century.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
3) Native America protests over the pipeline being built over tribal water sources, and the heavy-handed response from the state and private mercenaries.
3) Native America protests over the pipeline being built over tribal water sources, and the heavy-handed response from the state and private mercenaries.
I'm pretty sure mainstream journalists/media companies aren't actually aware that Native Americans exist in the contemporary US. They're pretty much never represented in any way, even in the most painfully constructed Advertising Diversity Rainbows(tm).
Native American issues are almost never brought up in any context. The only time I've ever seen them at all is every great once in a while they'll cover some random festival or holiday that goes on every year and do mournful closing shots about "a way of life that's slowly fading away" (spoiler alert: it's not).
So the lack of focus on the pipeline doesn't really surprise me. It doesn't fit into any of the convenient boxes, or touch upon any issues the newsmakers themselves consider relevant.
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
3) Native America protests over the pipeline being built over tribal water sources, and the heavy-handed response from the state and private mercenaries.
I'm limiting myself to potentially humanity ending stories, but fair point.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
Not "permanently", just for the expected life of humanity as a species (which, as a result of the above, is now somewhat shorter)...
It may take a few hundred thousand years, but the glaciers will be back.
Over a long enough term, all of this evens out. :?
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
Not "permanently", just for the expected life of humanity as a species (which, as a result of the above, is now somewhat shorter)...
It may take a few hundred thousand years, but the glaciers will be back.
Over a long enough term, all of this evens out. :?
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
Not "permanently", just for the expected life of humanity as a species (which, as a result of the above, is now somewhat shorter)...
It may take a few hundred thousand years, but the glaciers will be back.
Over a long enough term, all of this evens out. :?
Until the sun swallows the earth anyway.
Gary shouldn't you be campaigning or something? Maybe reading an encyclopedia?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
Not "permanently", just for the expected life of humanity as a species (which, as a result of the above, is now somewhat shorter)...
It may take a few hundred thousand years, but the glaciers will be back.
Over a long enough term, all of this evens out. :?
Until the sun swallows the earth anyway.
Gary shouldn't you be campaigning or something? Maybe reading an encyclopedia?
Fun fact, two marijuanas a day keeps the sun at bay.
uh, try most, if not all, of the history of journalism (Hearst, anyone?)
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
Not "permanently", just for the expected life of humanity as a species (which, as a result of the above, is now somewhat shorter)...
It may take a few hundred thousand years, but the glaciers will be back.
Over a long enough term, all of this evens out. :?
Until the sun swallows the earth anyway.
Gary shouldn't you be campaigning or something? Maybe reading an encyclopedia?
Fun fact, two marijuanas a day keeps the sun at bay.
Look, why give a shit now if the sun swallows the planet in a few billion years?
Times literally taking marching orders from Trump campaign, though they admit it at least?
EDIT: Apparently written by the same woman who wrote the Shonda Rhimes is an "angry black lady" piece from last fall. Maybe don't publish her work anymore.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is a right wing Fox News type lauding the success of the Berlin Wall in Communist East Germany. They haven't so much lost the plot as thrown it in the trunk and set the car on fire.
This is a right wing Fox News type lauding the success of the Berlin Wall in Communist East Germany. They haven't so much lost the plot as thrown it in the trunk and set the car on fire.
This made my brain hurt. WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?!
Twitter's moderation policy is still shit anyway and they should be ashamed of themselves still, even after this.
The problem is that this is baked into their corporate DNA, as a lot of their key people are the "free speech absolutist" types who think that not letting people be abusive is a greater threat to open dialogue than people getting pushed out because of abuse.
I agree with twitter on this. But they should add an option for you to block other accounts from bothering you.
Twitter's moderation policy is still shit anyway and they should be ashamed of themselves still, even after this.
The problem is that this is baked into their corporate DNA, as a lot of their key people are the "free speech absolutist" types who think that not letting people be abusive is a greater threat to open dialogue than people getting pushed out because of abuse.
I agree with twitter on this. But they should add an option for you to block other accounts from bothering you.
Which doesn't actually solve the problem of abuse. Not to mention that the term "bothering" is a rather diminishing understatement of the impact of that abuse.
And I find it disturbing how many people readily agree with the position that it's a greater abridgement of free speech to curtail abuse than it is to allow abuse to silence marginalized voices.
I find it disturbing that you think people should be silenced for speech you find disagreeable, abusive, etc.
If a given account is "abusive" to another, twitter should allow the victim to file for the internet equivalent of a restraining order. (If that is possible)
I find it disturbing that you think people should be silenced for speech you find disagreeable, abusive, etc.
If a given account is "abusive" to another, twitter should allow the victim to file for the internet equivalent of a restraining order. (If that is possible)
Do you feel PA should have the same policy as Twitter? Allow harassment and abuse in the name of "free speech"?
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I find it disturbing that you think people should be silenced for speech you find disagreeable, abusive, etc.
If a given account is "abusive" to another, twitter should allow the victim to file for the internet equivalent of a restraining order. (If that is possible)
Do you feel PA should have the same policy as Twitter? Allow harassment and abuse in the name of "free speech"?
No, PA is an online community of nerds of varied stripes. The moderators have established a set of rules for discourse (limited speech). You break them you get the boot. We (PA community) are under no obligation to let anyone stay that we find toxic or abusive.
Twitter has a business policy of letting anyone join. I think they need to change policy to allow people to block each other.
I've made my point in regards to twitter. If you want to discuss free speech in another thread I'd be happy to discuss the side topic further.
You can already block people on twitter. Is there confusion about that?
Some people in this thread are saying they think Twitter should have moderators that I guess ban users that are abusive towards others or use hate speech and what not. I don't think twitter should be obligated to do so, but I can understand people who think they should.
Posts
Can you imagine the water cooler convos?
Hey, Phil. Whatcha working on.
Oh, a story on the Election. Taking a new crack at it. Looking at this Pepe thing.
No.
Yeah, going to be really interesting, get into the belly
No. Phil. Don't.
Nah man, it's cool. I'll get to the bottom of it, I'll find the source.
There is no bottom. You are at the edge of the abyss. Back away. Please, Phil. For your children.
**Three months later**
Phil? Phil you ok man?
*huddled under his desk, fetal position and sobbing* Why. Why did nobody warn me. Why. There is no end to the rabbit hole. Oh god Oh god.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I mean no one sees this?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's Mark Halperin. The show might as well be 4chan live.
That seems unfair... to 4chan. You can get some pretty decent conversation going in several of the 4chan boards, and I'm pretty sure there's a shitload more diversity in there than there has ever been at MSN :P.
Hate Chelsea Handler or not, missing her show, probably not a great idea if you're a hateful bigot.
pleasepaypreacher.net
(Thiel has been a very prominent Trump supporter, remember.)
Not to single you out, but can we get greater context with tweets? For instance, apparently Trump tweeted:
https://mobile.twitter.com/samfbiddle/status/781860857261219840/photo/3
Basically, Biddle wants the press to hold Thiel's feet to the fire - either openly disavow Trump, or admit that his "outing" justification for killing Gawker was gooseshit, and his real motivation was to kill a media outlet that was regularly critical of Silicon Valley.
This isn't about women's issues so much as it's about determining if Thiel's big justification for destroying a media outlet was nothing more than a lie. Because if an article on his sexuality justified destroying Gawker, then Trump attacking Machado's should be beyond the pale for Thiel, right?
TL;DR: Politico refuses to cover Clinton speaking on her disability rights platform in Orlando because she made it about her policy and vision for America, rather than attacks on Trump.
It's the same old "If it bleeds, it ledes" mentality of the later half of the 20th century.
There has always been that aspect of it, but in my lifetime we've gone from the relatively harmless "Entertainment Tonight" to TMZ. We've gone from a largely decentralized media to a group of 5 companies that pretty much set the tone for everyone else. There's been more consolidation in all parts of the media in the past 40 years than ever before. So it's more than "it's always been that way". Yes, that aspect has been there all along but current conditions make it so that it's the primary one even when it is detrimental to everyone's existence. Even when there's good demand for more.
For example, here are two stories from this week with almost total blackout in mainstream American media:
1) The Indian military launching strikes in Pakistani Kashmir.
2) The planet going permanently over the 400 ppm barrier in terms of atmospheric carbon.
3) Native America protests over the pipeline being built over tribal water sources, and the heavy-handed response from the state and private mercenaries.
I'm pretty sure mainstream journalists/media companies aren't actually aware that Native Americans exist in the contemporary US. They're pretty much never represented in any way, even in the most painfully constructed Advertising Diversity Rainbows(tm).
Native American issues are almost never brought up in any context. The only time I've ever seen them at all is every great once in a while they'll cover some random festival or holiday that goes on every year and do mournful closing shots about "a way of life that's slowly fading away" (spoiler alert: it's not).
So the lack of focus on the pipeline doesn't really surprise me. It doesn't fit into any of the convenient boxes, or touch upon any issues the newsmakers themselves consider relevant.
I'm limiting myself to potentially humanity ending stories, but fair point.
Not "permanently", just for the expected life of humanity as a species (which, as a result of the above, is now somewhat shorter)...
It may take a few hundred thousand years, but the glaciers will be back.
Over a long enough term, all of this evens out. :?
Until the sun swallows the earth anyway.
Gary shouldn't you be campaigning or something? Maybe reading an encyclopedia?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Fun fact, two marijuanas a day keeps the sun at bay.
Look, why give a shit now if the sun swallows the planet in a few billion years?
Times literally taking marching orders from Trump campaign, though they admit it at least?
EDIT: Apparently written by the same woman who wrote the Shonda Rhimes is an "angry black lady" piece from last fall. Maybe don't publish her work anymore.
Dedication to the craft.
He's just so fucking witty.
This is a right wing Fox News type lauding the success of the Berlin Wall in Communist East Germany. They haven't so much lost the plot as thrown it in the trunk and set the car on fire.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This made my brain hurt. WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?!
How many Mexicans are there in East Berlin right now?
Not many, I'll wager
I agree with twitter on this. But they should add an option for you to block other accounts from bothering you.
Which doesn't actually solve the problem of abuse. Not to mention that the term "bothering" is a rather diminishing understatement of the impact of that abuse.
And I find it disturbing how many people readily agree with the position that it's a greater abridgement of free speech to curtail abuse than it is to allow abuse to silence marginalized voices.
Well, add in a death strip and watch towers with machine guns every 500 feet and it'd be awesome!
If a given account is "abusive" to another, twitter should allow the victim to file for the internet equivalent of a restraining order. (If that is possible)
Quit giving them ideas!
Do you feel PA should have the same policy as Twitter? Allow harassment and abuse in the name of "free speech"?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Look, if I can credit the GDR and the Soviets, so can they!
No, PA is an online community of nerds of varied stripes. The moderators have established a set of rules for discourse (limited speech). You break them you get the boot. We (PA community) are under no obligation to let anyone stay that we find toxic or abusive.
Twitter has a business policy of letting anyone join. I think they need to change policy to allow people to block each other.
I've made my point in regards to twitter. If you want to discuss free speech in another thread I'd be happy to discuss the side topic further.
Some people in this thread are saying they think Twitter should have moderators that I guess ban users that are abusive towards others or use hate speech and what not. I don't think twitter should be obligated to do so, but I can understand people who think they should.