> you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one
No I didn't, I have been subscribed to her Youtube channel for years, actually. I didn't dig up anything. Even if I had, that wouldn't detract even from iota from it.
I've also had my FB account suspended after 9 years of use, 100+ RL friends, using my real name all along, plenty of photos of me and being in tagged in photos, because apparently, people who wanted me off FB reported my profile as not being a real person. I didn't scan my ID and send it to FB out of principle. Mind you, nothing I posted or commented violated the rules, I never got any "trouble" until I flat out couldn't log in because, I guess, "typically" several accounts reporting a profile means it's fake, and the people who act on those reports probably don't get paid enough to actually take an in-depth look at the profiles they kill.
I'll admit, I'm glad, it was the best thing FB ever did for me. But I'm not all people, for some people that would be terrible, and terribly unfair. I know first hand that there is no process worth a fuck, and people just tend to assume "they wouldn't be treated this way unless there was a good reason for it". It's as old as cowardice and selfishness are.
If "false positives" are just a thing you would accept as long as you aren't hit, then I'll just act as if you were removed in this way. Another unfortunate false positive, nothing to see, really. Then there is also nothing I would have to to "nitpick to death" [by making a single comment with questions you ignore, no less] either, very tidy. If you don't care for due process for others, no due process for you.
> How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
I take this as the answer "nobody to my knowledge" to the question of who she harmed, and "nope" to the question whether you have actual knowledge of the actual individual cases. "there's going to be outliers" isn't enough, that you resort to saying I "went to lengths to dig up an example" just shows you don't necessarily shy from making authoritative statements about things you don't actually know.
The fact is that the speech was curtailed, if no reason is offered that doesn't mean "maybe there's a good reason, so let's just assume that and move along". You wouldn't want to be treated that way.
No I didn't, I have been subscribed to her Youtube channel for years, actually. I didn't dig up anything. Even if I had, that wouldn't detract even from iota from it.
Naomi Wu is a similar case: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=naomi%20wu&sort=byDate&prefix&...
I've also had my FB account suspended after 9 years of use, 100+ RL friends, using my real name all along, plenty of photos of me and being in tagged in photos, because apparently, people who wanted me off FB reported my profile as not being a real person. I didn't scan my ID and send it to FB out of principle. Mind you, nothing I posted or commented violated the rules, I never got any "trouble" until I flat out couldn't log in because, I guess, "typically" several accounts reporting a profile means it's fake, and the people who act on those reports probably don't get paid enough to actually take an in-depth look at the profiles they kill.
I'll admit, I'm glad, it was the best thing FB ever did for me. But I'm not all people, for some people that would be terrible, and terribly unfair. I know first hand that there is no process worth a fuck, and people just tend to assume "they wouldn't be treated this way unless there was a good reason for it". It's as old as cowardice and selfishness are.
If "false positives" are just a thing you would accept as long as you aren't hit, then I'll just act as if you were removed in this way. Another unfortunate false positive, nothing to see, really. Then there is also nothing I would have to to "nitpick to death" [by making a single comment with questions you ignore, no less] either, very tidy. If you don't care for due process for others, no due process for you.
> How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
I take this as the answer "nobody to my knowledge" to the question of who she harmed, and "nope" to the question whether you have actual knowledge of the actual individual cases. "there's going to be outliers" isn't enough, that you resort to saying I "went to lengths to dig up an example" just shows you don't necessarily shy from making authoritative statements about things you don't actually know.
The fact is that the speech was curtailed, if no reason is offered that doesn't mean "maybe there's a good reason, so let's just assume that and move along". You wouldn't want to be treated that way.