I assure you that I'm not being obtuse. The main misunderstanding was with the reference to a word although at this point we should each understand where the other is coming from. I'll note that I haven't used it; I've mentioned it, as have others in the discussion. It's necessary to mention a word in a context about a discussion about the ways in which private platforms should restrict individuals, and whether there is cause for a legal response.
If there's a subtext we haven't really discussed in this exchange,
it may be my preference for clear rules, and a different understanding largely (but not exclusively) on the left to give administrators and bureaucrats more discretion, although even in that case, "these decisions should be left up to administrators" is a policy suggestion.
I understand that people are upset about the timing of comments by libsoftiktok after the Colorado shooting, but it doesn't seem to me that there's a workable policy response. Should there be a system in place that comments that are otherwise acceptable merit suspensions during national tragedies?
I honestly don't think the vague civility rules work well. Social media and these types of forums are supposed to be used by people with different backgrounds and frames of reference. In many cases, they can be persuaded by an argument about what's acceptable and why, but that argument should be clearly made. It shouldn't up to people of different ages, races, religions, classes, education levels, mental functions, nationalities, etc. to acclimate to the current understanding of college-educated American left-wingers. People should have a good sense of what the penalty will be for a comment before they make it, especially as these understandings aren't constant. It would not have been taboo to refer to mastectomies of minors as mutilation up until recently.
One way we may be talking past one another is that I'm focusing on the bigger policy questions (both in terms of what the law should and private institutions should do), and you guys are focusing on whether an activist is a bad person.
We still should determine what the policy is for banning someone who encourages and enables violence. For example, there have been riots after police misconduct has been made public, and any policy that would be used to penalize libsoftiktok could be used to go after critics of the police, especially if you want her to be criminally prosecuted.
If she's broken a law, what law has she broken? If she hasn't broken a law, what law should be put in place to stop people like her in the future?
That's terrible.
I remember volunteering for a political campaign years ago (2012) and freaking out some people in Suburban Long Island when I was walking around knocking on their doors to give out campaign literature. It's especially problematic when in some cases you need people's signatures to get a candidate or an issue on the ballot.
We've got a culture clash between people who want to be left alone (every apartment building with a "No solicitations" sign) and methods of direct democracy.