And you don't actually "hear" people discussing in threads you don't click on. I don't want to hear about Apple, ever, nothing they do or make interests me, or ever will. Yet I wouldn't dream of curtailing others discussing that stuff.
You don't have to talk about anything, just because others talk about it. Someone is deciding that nobody should talk about it.
When Meta changed their terms, it was a BIG topic. When TechCorp releases anything, it will be covered in alllll the tech publications, and so many of them have comment sections, social media presences, the works. But it turns out people want to discuss the same issues also in this circle.
And with this topic, social media manipulation, wanting to decide what people see and what they don't, is intrinsically woven in (via Musk and X directly, and Musk's role in an administration that seems to play janky games with TikTok we probably should pay attention to, too). How can we, with good conscience, have articles talking about how we should make the world more accessible and diverse on one hand, and then enforcing silence when a tech bro mogul throws a Hitler salute... just because others, the non-techies, are already talking about it, too?
What data point? That a question goes unanswered because my account is 5 months old?
> If you can find a contentious story and plenty of debate elsewhere, it almost always gets flagged for multiple reasons by a variety of people
You just said "just look at the comments", now you backtrack to nebulous "multiple reasons by a variety of people". From the data points I have so far, the people who are for flagging don't want to talk about their reasons. Maybe they all think they have good reasons, and would say "just look at $thing", and then have no good reason when I ask "what about $thing"?
So that is literally the data point I have... when I have three I'll declare my discovery of how this all works and ignore all further data, unless it fits my theory of course.
> As for the comments, I see people trying to claim this isn't an issue and being refuted, how is that bad? How is that "unproductive"? Compared to what?
You just ignored it outright. Just because it's not flattering that I call out excuses that have no substance, doesn't mean I'm wrong. You're essentially saying "I could make the argument, but now I don't want to", and I say you're bluffing.
And you don't actually "hear" people discussing in threads you don't click on. I don't want to hear about Apple, ever, nothing they do or make interests me, or ever will. Yet I wouldn't dream of curtailing others discussing that stuff.