The response was to someone commenting the discourse on Bluesky was "off putting" so they went back to Twitter.
I wasn't touching on freedom of speech, just the relative quality of speech in both platforms.
As a centralized service operating in Canada and the EU though, I do believe Twitter is legally required to remove certain kinds of hate speech. The qualification for removal might be debatable (e.g. "the Austrian painter was right" is another thing people say which is a dogwhistle, but probably not explicit enough for companies to be compelled to remove it) but the requirement is there.
> but I'm sure you hold dear the right to say whatever you want, whether others agree with it or not
You know, reflecting back on my youth, I wish certain things I said (and might have posted on social media had it been so present) were immediately stricken from the record. Banning hate speech which incites violence against a minority group is a slippery slope, but I think it's for the better. At the same time, of course it can be abused, such as with the IHRA definition of antisemitism used in many jurisdictions, under which many valid criticisms of Israel would be deemed "antisemitic"
Spewing stuff like what? Robert Maxwell, Ghislane Maxwell's father (a proud Zionist and Mossad agent) was the co-founder of McGraw Hill, the second largest textbook publishing company in the US. Are you trying to tell me a proud Zionist who is publishing textbooks is making it his priority to ensure they paint an objective picture of history in relationship to Israel? My textbooks (whether in High School or University) certainly didn't talk about the Sabbateans or Jacob Frank / Frankism - yet understanding their history is critical to anything approaching objectivity.
What I expect is for all narratives to be able to be questioned, and not for there to be one that is unquestionable. When narratives can't be questioned, it's a pretty good indicator that something is being lied about.
> This is a perfect example of when I think freedom of speech restrictions (such as laws criminalizing Holocaust denial) are a net positive.
Of course you think that, because you don't want to have an objective conversation about the events that took place, you want a single narrative to prevail unquestioningly.
> My grandparents were holocaust survivors, so I know directly from them what they went through, and I know about my family members who were killed.
I'm sure they were. Just like I'm sure the number of survivors keeps increasing as the years go on. Wild how that happens.
> I have no sympathy for people who publicly spread lies and misinformation to deny or downplay the severity of any genocide.
Convenient when you can brush off what Israel is doing by claiming it's not a genocide.
> Sorry not sorry.
I typically don't expect pathological liars and pathological victims to be sorry about much.
I wasn't touching on freedom of speech, just the relative quality of speech in both platforms.
As a centralized service operating in Canada and the EU though, I do believe Twitter is legally required to remove certain kinds of hate speech. The qualification for removal might be debatable (e.g. "the Austrian painter was right" is another thing people say which is a dogwhistle, but probably not explicit enough for companies to be compelled to remove it) but the requirement is there.
> but I'm sure you hold dear the right to say whatever you want, whether others agree with it or not
You know, reflecting back on my youth, I wish certain things I said (and might have posted on social media had it been so present) were immediately stricken from the record. Banning hate speech which incites violence against a minority group is a slippery slope, but I think it's for the better. At the same time, of course it can be abused, such as with the IHRA definition of antisemitism used in many jurisdictions, under which many valid criticisms of Israel would be deemed "antisemitic"