Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's about what values we choose to uphold as a society > "Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy ..." > Pretty sure he hits a few of those? I have a hard time reconciling your two statements. The slippery slope argument is great when you encounter a (seemingly) insignificant step in the wrong direction. Banning Alex Jones on platforms is simply upholding societal value…
You're selectively quoting me. I'm pretty sure I spent a bit of time talking about tolerance and what it means. They could have easily said we don't allow illegal content and that would be the end of it. I would be fine with that. It would mean a jury of my peers would determine if whatever was said violated our societal values. That's not what they said. That's not what any of them say. Instead, they very clearly st…
> That's not what they said. That's not what any of them say. Instead, they very clearly state that they will determine what is and what is not allowed by their standards.
This is in confliect with your quoted offensive content.
Sure, they will determine what constitutes the examples of offensive content, but at least in this case you yourself agreed with it, yet you claim you don't?
Again, make the argument when they do something wrong, not when they do something objectively in line with their terms and societal norms.
I might agree with you in principle, but I don't agree with the case put forth.