Reply to edit:
Nope. Just don't like petty authoritarians.
Reply to edit:
Nope. Just don't like petty authoritarians.
Oh, it's hyperbolic, but it gets the point across.
Oh I'm sure you have a way to justify your corrupt authoritarianism. I don't care what your reasoning is. If you ban people without them breaking rules, then the only actual rule is "don't upset the power tripping bastards", which I strongly disagree with.
How is this upvoted so much? This is fucking insane.
"Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn't break any rules"
Wonderful strawman that doesn't address his point.
Just finished chopping a bunch wood. I don't get it /s
So community notes can address more instances of misinformation, that part is true.
But if the community provides misinformation as the "note" then it can actually spread and legitimize misinformation.
So superior is definitely the wrong word for it. Perhaps more efficient? But also more likely to reinforce echo chambers.
Superior would be implementing community notes and then having those checked by centralized fact checkers.
Yes, other people who disregard facts share your opinion.
God forbid people have fun.
So they removed fact checking, and someone lied? Oh my, what a surprise.
I mean, I think you sound ridiculous... So agree to disagree there.