You must log in or register to comment.
At least it’s a conspicuous reminder of the state of things.
The answer to this is simple: say what you mean. This will take, to some degree, courage. It may even take, I hesitate to say, some sacrifice. When I suggest this course of action to people, they inevitably say, “But it will cost me audience!” or “But what if I lose followers!” or “What if they demonetize me!”
Okay, what if they do? What if they do.
Well, it sucks. You put a lot of effort into putting your thoughts out there and one day it’s all removed just like that, and you are banned forever, I’m sure many can relate. If someone wants to be heard, accepting that they will not be isn’t an answer.
I’m all for moving away from platforms run by corpostate censors if you can, but I don’t understand all the disrespect for people trying to evade censorship instead. Civil disobedience style resistance where you express yourself directly and face the consequences directly is valid, but why is trying to get away with it not also valid? This seems like punching in the wrong direction.
Remember when “name-mangling” was banned by search-engines, and so the euphamism “name-decorating” became fashionable??
( programming stuff )
This isn’t new.
Ask the Germans who weren’t with the nazis if they had to speak in euphamisms…
Ask the Christians who weren’t with the inquisitors…
ask the Hong Kong people not in the CCP…
it’s always the same:
if the owner of the platform dictates specific-nonspeech/suppression,
then you either don’t speak there, xor you comply-in-form while speaking there.
& so long as the owned-platforms own most of the world’s speech, then it is rank ideology to pretend that only leaving is valid.
Nothing has changed except the details, through the centuries…
human-nature is the same as it was in politics centuries ago.
🙏
I just realised I haven’t read that word in years… I’m guessing since exactly when I left Reddit.
Worth.
