SaidIt Survey: Ban /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot or keep them around?

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

No matter how you feel about someone, they could surprise you with some insightful things to say. Disagreements can get out of hand on here, but that all depends on how much emotional work is going into it. That said, no. Both have posted some pain in the ass comments imo, but restrictions on their ability to post because of even escalated disagreements is stupid. We don't want our speech restricted, so why would we impose that on someone else simply because we don't like what they have to say or piss us off with their argument methods?

[–]soundsituation 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Okay, I'm curious: do you feel the same way about paid influencers? I agree with everything you said when it comes to free agents, but I think an exception should be made for shills, in the same way that I think individuals should be afforded maximum liberty but corporations should be held to a different standard.

[–]chadwickofwv 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I can agree that paid influencers should be banned, but how can you be sure someone is being paid for a post? I believe you have to default to free speech unless you can prove an account is a paid shill, not just a shill. I don't really believe this site has the resources for that type of investigation.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It's irrelevant if they're paid or not.
It's irrelevant if they shill or not.
We all have agendas.
It matters if they break the rules - perpetually.