Which is a distinction without a difference really. If all it takes to get a blank cheque to evade rules is use a direct link to a 3rd party site or filehost, and the text of your tweet spells out exactly what's under the link, then the rule is worthless.
I'm pretty sure it is doxxing on Twitter, but linking to doxx on Twitter would not be an effective dodge for that one. On Reddit, the rule was that two links in had to be free from doxx - at least for people the admins didn't like. Obviously, you can't go around linking to doxx like this.
Trump has literally said he is going to push for social media to be forced to allow all "legal" free speech. What counts as "illegal" speech? I'm sure the ADL will help you decide.
Plus, there was just a court case where homophobic slurs were dismissed as not hate-speech because the kid spouting them didn't mean to be hateful, so it's k.
I think this backfires by providing lawmakers more incentive to legally define speech they want to prohibit, just so they can ban mean tweets. I hope I'm wrong.
This will come down to if he meant doxxing of Twitter users or doxxing on Twitter.
If he doesn't ban and claims it's the latter, I guess everyone can do whatever as long as they link it.
Which is a distinction without a difference really. If all it takes to get a blank cheque to evade rules is use a direct link to a 3rd party site or filehost, and the text of your tweet spells out exactly what's under the link, then the rule is worthless.
I'm pretty sure it is doxxing on Twitter, but linking to doxx on Twitter would not be an effective dodge for that one. On Reddit, the rule was that two links in had to be free from doxx - at least for people the admins didn't like. Obviously, you can't go around linking to doxx like this.
Or maybe, hear me out, a certain group of people gets held to a different standard than the rest of us.
Of course, but what will the excuse be?
"This is antisemitic."
C'mon dude or dudette, you already know this one.
Trump has literally said he is going to push for social media to be forced to allow all "legal" free speech. What counts as "illegal" speech? I'm sure the ADL will help you decide.
Plus, there was just a court case where homophobic slurs were dismissed as not hate-speech because the kid spouting them didn't mean to be hateful, so it's k.
I think this backfires by providing lawmakers more incentive to legally define speech they want to prohibit, just so they can ban mean tweets. I hope I'm wrong.