Twitter removed 800 followers from my account today. People have been writing saying twitter automatically unfollowed me for them. Follow me on Parler @robinmonotti & Telegram https://t.co/o5rFaSrCpa to bypass this.
https://t.co/NeZ1t39S1q
https://t.co/m70uj6vviC
Trust us not to turn over data. Trust us not to read your messages. Trust us not to close your channel. Maybe @Durov is an angel. I hope so! But angels have fallen before. Telegram should have been working to make channels decentralized\u2014meaning outside their control\u2014for years.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) December 30, 2017
https://t.co/QnfUzGiAW9
Think about this with reference to the media operation on Covid19.
A Telegram channel (amadnews) started to instruct their subscribers to use Molotov cocktails against police and got suspended due to our "no calls for violence" rule. Be careful \u2013 there are lines one shouldn't cross. Similar case from October \u2013 https://t.co/OWQFBLywjr
— Pavel Durov (@durov) December 30, 2017
https://t.co/i0MidqAR6i
Any chance you are going to change the flag of Great Britain as well? There are some good dystopian films to draw inspiration from. pic.twitter.com/qKp43zBiMi
— Pavel Durov (@durov) June 8, 2017
More from Robin Monotti
More from Twitter
This is why I'm not a critic of "cancel culture." It's crucial to impose social costs for the breech of key social norms. The lesson of overreaction is that we need to recalibrate judgment to get it right next time, not that we need a lot more bad judgment in the other direction.
Obviously, people will disagree about which norms are important, about how bad it is to violate them, and thus about how severe the social cost ought to be. That's just pluralism, man, and it's good.
It's important to openly talk through these substantive differences, which is why derailing these conversations with hand-waving moral panic about "cancel culture" is obnoxious and illiberal.
Screaming "cancel culture!" when somebody pays a social costs other people have been fighting hard to get others to see as necessary is often just a way to declare, with no argument, that the sanction in question was not only unnecessary but in breach of a more important norm.
It's impossible to uphold social norms without social sanctions, so obviously anti-cancelers are going to want to impose a social cost on people they see as imposing unjustly steep social costs on others.
Every single critic of "cancel culture" just thinks the wrong people are getting canceled. pic.twitter.com/DDIVccj8zV
— Michael Hobbes (@RottenInDenmark) February 2, 2021
Obviously, people will disagree about which norms are important, about how bad it is to violate them, and thus about how severe the social cost ought to be. That's just pluralism, man, and it's good.
It's important to openly talk through these substantive differences, which is why derailing these conversations with hand-waving moral panic about "cancel culture" is obnoxious and illiberal.
Screaming "cancel culture!" when somebody pays a social costs other people have been fighting hard to get others to see as necessary is often just a way to declare, with no argument, that the sanction in question was not only unnecessary but in breach of a more important norm.
It's impossible to uphold social norms without social sanctions, so obviously anti-cancelers are going to want to impose a social cost on people they see as imposing unjustly steep social costs on others.
