Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is about a lot more than ISPs.

>Examples abound: Facebook decided, in the midst of the #MeToo movement’s rise, that the statement “men are trash” constitutes hateful speech.

So the EFF is taking the most-cowardly narrative towards having the right stance: That censoring "hate speech" is fine, but that legitimizing these kinds of content restrictions will legitimate other content restrictions that might prevent woke activists from "punching down" and such. I guess this is supposed to appeal to the support of frickheads that get angry at Reddit censoring the advocacy of violence against nazis.

If the EFF can't actually bring itself to that argue that "women are trash" should be protected speech then they've already lost.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"no bad tactics, only bad targets"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"We needed to have the conversation anyway."

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The EFF knows the people that need any convincing about this are, without exception, fully r-slurred and that's who they're catering to.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Now playing: Stickerbrush Symphony (Ori and the Will of the Wisps Remix) (DKC2).mp3

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.