If the platform is filled with the same category of political speech, it directly flies in the face of the narrative that this type of political speech is being banned and that there's a chilling effect. You're taking a single anecdote that requires ignorance of all all surrounding evidence to prove a point that you want to prove.
You appear to have an overwhelming desire to see this obvious outlier as indicative of a larger pattern that clearly does not exist. A conclusion this article clearly alludes to and wants you to come to but doesn't do on it's on because it's so provably incorrect.
Just because this administration has done something in the past doesn't mean that every time that thing happens, this administration is responsible for it.
I didn't blame the administration at all. I don't even think this is specifically about political speech. You're ascribing a lot of beliefs to me that I haven't expressed, and assuming we have a similar experience of social media which flies in the face of everything we know about filter-bubbles and algorithmic content.
Comments
When you say "it", what are you referring to?
I don't know anything about the internal workings of meta to confidently state that situations like this do or don't cause internal change.
What I can say is scores of people on Meta's various platforms are saying very negative things about the US administration and are not being banned.
"it" = people being banned for innocuous things.
Just because you don't always get banned for political speech, doesn't mean random political speech bans don't have a chilling effect.
If the platform is filled with the same category of political speech, it directly flies in the face of the narrative that this type of political speech is being banned and that there's a chilling effect. You're taking a single anecdote that requires ignorance of all all surrounding evidence to prove a point that you want to prove.
You appear to have an overwhelming desire to see this obvious outlier as indicative of a larger pattern that clearly does not exist. A conclusion this article clearly alludes to and wants you to come to but doesn't do on it's on because it's so provably incorrect.
Just because this administration has done something in the past doesn't mean that every time that thing happens, this administration is responsible for it.
I didn't blame the administration at all. I don't even think this is specifically about political speech. You're ascribing a lot of beliefs to me that I haven't expressed, and assuming we have a similar experience of social media which flies in the face of everything we know about filter-bubbles and algorithmic content.