Show me one place on the planet which doesn't have "policed speech", based on your definition.
Here's a clue. All speech is policed. And you can still use the down vote, as free speech. But as with all speech, it may carry consequences. Those consequences are fairly defined and presumably equally applied.
What you're really saying is you want editorial control to censor others and that power without consequences. Your very platform is dishonest.
If you're demanding admission of truth from others, why not start first with yourself?
Show me one place on the planet which doesn't have "policed speech", based on your definition.
Here's a clue. All speech is policed. And you can still use the down vote, as free speech. But as with all speech, it may carry consequences. Those consequences are fairly defined and presumably equally applied.
What you're really saying is you want editorial control to censor others and that power without consequences. Your very platform is dishonest.
If you're demanding admission of truth from others, why not start first with yourself?
Then it's not free.
Then it's not free.
Your dishonest revisionism is transparent.
Noteworthy you can't provide an example to support your dishonest position. Point taken.
Your dishonest revisionism is transparent.
Noteworthy you can't provide an example to support your dishonest position. Point taken.
(post is archived)