That is your conclusion for a specific case, calm down bro I didn't say this subreddit was a benevolent group lol, no shit it's complicated and subjective. That doesn't mean I support censorship in these cases though of which there are many, because that is what's happening and often it's just the whim and political leaning of the platform.
Beyond that who do you think these people are inciting? Like would any reasonable person read this subreddit and start commiting violent acts? That sounds like the scum of the earth anyway that don't need reddit to be incited or for any violence to happen, but stifling free speech is not worth it most of the time and you aren't really helping anything anyway. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a clear threat. People shitposting online isn't. If there's a clear violation of rules then fine, but saying that entire groups should be shut down without evidence is a fuckin slippery slope and if you use your brain you don't really need to worry about some dumbass subreddit.
Yes and reasonable people understand this and don't need censorship. Who would hate a platform for not removing people for just honestly disagreeing and talking? Inciting violence and cheating the system is a different story and the obvious edge of free speech
I'm responding because you and gp are talking about precise measurements.
I'm asking basic questions about if and how you can measure it and you respond like it's "injecting ideas"... What lol? Can you not be a baby or not handle a question? There's nothing to reread which alters this.
That's a ridiculous assumption to make. You have no idea what percent of any crowd is there to appease someone else and any claim otherwise is silly.
What if someone is there for more than one reason(Hint everyone)? Do they not count anymore?
Bad weather lowers attendance for all events you dullard that doesn't support anything you've said. You're just ascribing intention to thousands of people and it's really lazy thiking. You haven't even scratched the surface of why some people are there but go ahead and keep making your wild assumptions
I feel this is not a well thought out perspective.
They have ""bad karma" according to your subjective view of the world. What if that's how they view you? What if a human is the worst thing you could be?
Who is disagreeing with this? The issue is that people disagree on what the facts are, so when twitter does a fact check some people would disagree, what if it's a close call?
I'm not going to agree or disagree with their assessment I don't really care. I'm saying I don't give a shit what "twitter corp" thinks about X persons tweet. I want to read it and see for myself.
Don't turn to Twitter for a medical issue... Who would do that? If you're looking in a textbook as mentioned you will find well referenced established science, or speaking to a medical professional. That is not Twitter and was never it's strength