That’s not censorship. You can still post with that word and it doesn’t get deleted. It just won’t get spread as far and wide. All your followers etc will still see it.
It’s being blocked from being read or seen, as per the definition. They are quite literally censoring a word for political reasons in line with their political agenda. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
First, don’t fall into the trap of confusing censorship with moderation. Second, don’t confuse the world’s richest man’s sad attempt at fueling culture wars with plain racism.
I used to use Twitter and I know for a fact that it’s literally being limited by not allowing it to be read or seen, appearing under one of those disclaimers at the bottom of a thread that was caught by the filter and in practice functions as a convenient dustbin to silence discourse. And you said it yourself, it’s being treated differently by preventing its diffusion and visibility.
Or tell me, why is a neutral word like cisgender being censored at all? But spare me the gaslighting.
I know for a fact that it’s literally being limited by not allowing it to be read or seen
How do you know this? If you can’t see it or read it, how do you know this?
And you said it yourself, it’s being treated differently by preventing its diffusion and visibility.
That isn’t censorship.
Or tell me, why is a neutral word like cisgender being censored at all? But spare me the gaslighting.
Again - it’s not being censored. You don’t get posts removed for saying it. You don’t get banned. The term is a controversial one, it’s not “neutral”. “Cisgender” has no need to even exist as a word. You don’t need a word to mean “not trans”, which is 99.99% of the population. The word “transgender” existing negates a need for “cisgender” to exist. “Cisgender” is really only ever used as an insult, which is why it’s treated as such. There’s no word for “not blind”, because not being blind is the default, the standard.
First, don’t fall into the trap of confusing censorship with moderation.
It’s funny you say that. Moderation that removes all differing opinions, and bans people who express them, is censorship. Limiting the reach of posts deemed “hateful”, while not removing them or banning the person posting them, is not censorship.
How do you know this? If you can’t see it or read it, how do you know this?
Because it’s been reported by the news that I cited.
That isn’t censorship.
It’s the literal definition. Just because it’s thinly veiled as a moderation measure by a billionaire doesn’t mean that the core concept doesn’t apply. Like I said, don’t confuse it either way.
You don’t get posts removed for saying it. You don’t get banned.
And like I said, censorship is not only when your content gets removed or you get banned. You can have a similar effect with different mechanisms that effectively render content invisible, and I find it disingenuous of you not to consider that.
“Cisgender” has no need to even exist as a word.
You don’t need a word to mean “not trans”,
Brother, we have created entire fictional languages for less, and have names for concepts you can’t even conceive of. Your argument is fragile. And your monolignualism is showing with those nearsighted takes.
“Cisgender” is really only ever used as an insult,
Cisgender has been thrown at Musk and his supporters because they treat it as an insult. Don’t even. lol
Limiting the reach of posts deemed “hateful”, while not removing them or banning the person posting them, is not censorship.
It’s most definitely a form of censorship, and I will die on this hill tonight.
According to TechCrunch, users who write “cis” or “cisgender” on the X mobile app receive a full-screen message stating, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” Users can choose to continue publishing the post or delete it.
Strange censorship that is, letting you say what you want.
I know, strange times we live in where “liberal” words are treated as if they were so dangerous that they need a consent screen. I don’t see that happening to hate speech and you’re here defending this.
I know it doesn’t register in your mind the implications but I don’t expect you to.
That’s not censorship. You can still post with that word and it doesn’t get deleted. It just won’t get spread as far and wide. All your followers etc will still see it.
It’s being blocked from being read or seen, as per the definition. They are quite literally censoring a word for political reasons in line with their political agenda. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Do you think they should classify the “n word” as a slur and limit its reach? Is that censorship?
Cis isn’t being blocked from being seen or read.
First, don’t fall into the trap of confusing censorship with moderation. Second, don’t confuse the world’s richest man’s sad attempt at fueling culture wars with plain racism.
I used to use Twitter and I know for a fact that it’s literally being limited by not allowing it to be read or seen, appearing under one of those disclaimers at the bottom of a thread that was caught by the filter and in practice functions as a convenient dustbin to silence discourse. And you said it yourself, it’s being treated differently by preventing its diffusion and visibility.
Or tell me, why is a neutral word like cisgender being censored at all? But spare me the gaslighting.
How do you know this? If you can’t see it or read it, how do you know this?
That isn’t censorship.
Again - it’s not being censored. You don’t get posts removed for saying it. You don’t get banned. The term is a controversial one, it’s not “neutral”. “Cisgender” has no need to even exist as a word. You don’t need a word to mean “not trans”, which is 99.99% of the population. The word “transgender” existing negates a need for “cisgender” to exist. “Cisgender” is really only ever used as an insult, which is why it’s treated as such. There’s no word for “not blind”, because not being blind is the default, the standard.
It’s funny you say that. Moderation that removes all differing opinions, and bans people who express them, is censorship. Limiting the reach of posts deemed “hateful”, while not removing them or banning the person posting them, is not censorship.
Because it’s been reported by the news that I cited.
It’s the literal definition. Just because it’s thinly veiled as a moderation measure by a billionaire doesn’t mean that the core concept doesn’t apply. Like I said, don’t confuse it either way.
And like I said, censorship is not only when your content gets removed or you get banned. You can have a similar effect with different mechanisms that effectively render content invisible, and I find it disingenuous of you not to consider that.
Brother, we have created entire fictional languages for less, and have names for concepts you can’t even conceive of. Your argument is fragile. And your monolignualism is showing with those nearsighted takes.
Cisgender has been thrown at Musk and his supporters because they treat it as an insult. Don’t even. lol
It’s most definitely a form of censorship, and I will die on this hill tonight.
From your own source:
Strange censorship that is, letting you say what you want.
I know, strange times we live in where “liberal” words are treated as if they were so dangerous that they need a consent screen. I don’t see that happening to hate speech and you’re here defending this.
I know it doesn’t register in your mind the implications but I don’t expect you to.
Btw, you seem to be defending a company that does this shit:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/elon-musk-x-twitter-antisemitism-hashtags-trending-hate-rcna151945
If you say the n word on twitter you get the same message, as you do with other slurs.
A company that relies on ads putting ads in their service? Oh no, the horror…