If you consider doxing as a real tangible harm then what about vulnerable groups coming under harm due to being singled out? LibsOfTikTok made claims about Boston Children’s Hospital that caused tangible harm and yet they were unbanned. You might say that LibsOfTikTok didn’t cause the harm, that the responsibility was on the people perpetrating the bomb threats, but the same logic applies to ElonJet and this “stalker” incident.
> You might say that LibsOfTikTok didn’t cause the harm, that the responsibility was on the people perpetrating the bomb threats, but the same logic applies to ElonJet and this “stalker” incident.
Correct on both counts. Neither account should be banned or punished
I like that response; its a point of view with proper consistency. Twitter is also a private so another view is that you can ban them both and it’s also consistent and within Musks rights.
Of course it’s also within Musks rights to ban one and not the other, just because. But he’s also taken a very public position on free speech wrt Twitter so I think it’s reasonable to point out when those standards are applied inconsistently, and also challenge people who are trying to draw arbitrary lines to defend him.
From my limited understanding of the whole LibsOfTikTok / Children's hospital thing, what they had posted was false and thus libel and thus illegal speech which is not allowed on the platform?
May be useful to consider the hypothetical where the statement is true though. What's the right policy in that case? Seems like the sort of hypothetical our speech policies should be robust to.
Information being false or libelous is another reason to ban someone. That makes it more hypocritical that LibsOfTikTok was unbanned but ElonJet was banned.
I don't connect to Twitter, but I thought that LibsOfTikTok posted evidence in the form of screenshots and recordings of what hospital representatives had said over the phone. Someone even found a paper where authors affiliated with Boston Children's Hospital reported 65 gender affirming surgeries performed when the patient was a minor at the time of surgery: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071943 (Table 1).
From the paper: "The Center for
Gender Surgery (CfGS) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) was the first pediatric
center in the United States to offer gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals
over 15 years old and genital surgeries for those over 17 years of age. "
The specific claims of surgeries being performed at the specific hospital, most relevantly, which was the specific thing that motivated the bomb threats.
> It's well-documented that children are being subjected to 'gender-affirming' drugs and surgeries.
Its well-documented that a small numbet of children with identified needs are prescribed puberty blockers, and that this is extremely significant in reducing suicide rates; its well documented that even smaller number of teens get hormone treatments to promote puberty of the gender of identity, and that a positively miniscule number of teens get (mostly) top or mor rarely) bottom surgery, as well.
> We'll likely look back on this as a huge medical scandal, just as we do for the frontal lobotomy craze.
It’s more likely that we’ll look at the drive promoted largely on the basis of religious conservatism to impose ascribed gender over gender identity and deny such care, with clear evidence that doing so is killing people, as a medical scandal, similar to all the other times care was denied or known harmful interventions were applied systematically to a targeted marginalized community.
> The specific claims of surgeries being performed at the specific hospital, most relevantly, which was the specific thing that motivated the bomb threats.
> It’s more likely that we’ll look at the drive promoted largely on the basis of religious conservatism to impose ascribed gender over gender identity and deny such care, with clear evidence that doing so is killing people, as a medical scandal, similar to all the other times care was denied or known harmful interventions were applied systematically to a targeted marginalized community.
Unlikely, especially with the rise in outspoken detransitioners who have been caught up in this gender madness, and whistleblowing medical staff. They have first-hand experience of how harmful these medical interventions are - and people are listening.
Some European health systems have already massively walked back their 'gender-affirming' care for children.
> especially with the rise in outspoken detransitioners
Detransitioners are rare among those who have transitioned, and of detransitioners, most of tjkse that are public about their views most support trans rights and access to gender affirming care. The propaganda narrative that you are being sold with outspoken detransitioners is, like everything else about trans issues from the same media channels that isn’t an outright lie, a distortiom.
> They have first-hand experience of how harmful these medical interventions are
The data shows that they are overwhelming helpful. You are, when the individuals in question aren’t lying about the specific cases, still just being sold isolated anecdotes with no perspective on relation to the normal experience, designed as emotional manipulation by professional propagandists, to get you to support a campaign of death (both through neglect and more actively) for trans people.
> Some European health systems have already massively walked back their 'gender-affirming' care for children.
Yes, and so have some American ones, as the consequence if an international political movement actively seeking the elimination of trans people, by death if necessary—and this walk-back absolutely, provably contributes to deaths.
"harm due to being singled out" seems way too broad, e.g. every time a politician is criticized, they could complain on the grounds that they're being "singled out"
reply