Look at the kind of things that have been said to me here for saying that people should be able to make different ethical choices wrt using substack or subscribing to one without being constantly dragged for it. Even the original comment I replied to that started this.
(btw - I'm still interacting with *you* because your disagreement was reasonable and not ad-hom. I don't think there are easy answers here and I'm happy to engage. I just dislike seeing us tearing down those who would be our allies over an ethical gray area)
There is no tearing down! It's people who decide to disengage and stop giving clicks to a website which platforms nazis!
I have no problem with people making that choice for themselves, or advocating that others do it. But when someone makes that choice the ethical standard for everyone else that's where I have a problem.
Journalists have it bad enough already without having to constantly move their limited support base around to keep the keyboard warriors happy.
You came here saying we have to give fascists a platform, so that they don't Go Into Hiding People disagree with YOU, because this kind of both-sidesing is what made the decades of buildup which allowed Trump to become president Deplatforming works! No more of this coddling of weak, pathetic men!
I can see how you got there but that's not really my argument. Bluesky just isn't designed for nuanced conversation.
What nuance am I missing here You want fascists to have equal footing and access to platforms in order to keep an eye on them, and hope that the fascists learn how being a fascist is wrong, but you can't even explain why you think that's important without a thesis? Do you see what's wrong here??