I think Twitter, Facebook etc should immediately ban anyone inciting any criminal behaviour, never mind who they are , what they are inciting or why.
To their credit they try to do so but these sites are so heavily used it's an uphill task to monitor them; and their managers cannot know what has been posted until it has appeared and already spread. Not only bare-faced calls for criminality like Bannon's, but also wilful "mis-information" and downright ignorance (both spread as lies) that don't call for law-breaking as such, but skew knowledge and manipulate opinions to suit the originators' ambitions or egos.
The only option would be to vet all new posts and accounts prior to publication, but I don't know if that is possible except in totalitarian states that monitor everyone's 'phone and Internet use. It could lead to censorship of legitimate posts, especially if done automatically by using something like the family-safety filters Microsoft builds into its operating-systems. Those work but in a clumsy fashion, possibly preventing genuine reports or blocking genuine words that have dubious slang meanings.
'
I encountered a rather amusing example when I was a regular contributor to Wikipedia's Answers site. Someone had asked about geological features called generically, "igneous intrusions" (of molten rock, into surrounding rocks). I had to write a pained response to the moderators that the "offending" word in my response, is a proper scientific and civil-engineering term, and added it's not my fault that Americans use it as denigrating slang. Wiki accepted my explanation and allowed it. What had happened? I had explained the three primary igneous intrusion types: batholiths, sills and dykes.... the last is a sort of "wall" of rock, using the Dutch word originally and still that for the sea-walls enclosing their polders.
I think we spell it DIKE. Well other words have been completely bas**rdized. Take the word GAY. Who decided to use it for those who are members of the LGBTQ community? GAY? Seriously? I think that is onerous and disgusting but is done all the time by the dingbats and dumbbells and idiots. I know styles change and things evolve and sometimes for the better. Now when we see old movies it is appalling the way we used to laugh at things that make us CRINGE today. That is evolving toward the good. But we don't always turn toward good and that's what is so scary. I don't know why mean or cruel is part of human nature. Is it a standard part everyone is equipped with but not everyone uses? The cruel the mean the evil are drawn together. Makes sense. What doesn't is why people are mean cruel evil. SIGH. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Durdle.
This post was edited by RosieG at November 8, 2020 2:42 AM MST
In America and Canada a dike is a wall, a dyke is an offensive term for a lesbian. The "y" spelling is acceptable elsewhere. Where is Wikipedia moderated?
I must admit I didn't know there is that difference in spelling. I thought I had seen "dike" with an 'i' used for both!
I don't know if Answers is still a Wikipedia branch, and it was closed for a while but has been re-opened with a somewhat different appearance. It is a big question-&-answer knowledge web-site in which science is one of many categories. I guess it is based and moderated primarily in America but may have moderators elsewhere. I think I did explain to them that I am not American.
The offensive use of the word is not usually used as far as I have heard, in British slang. That tends instead to use shortened versions of "lesbian" with a rather sneering tone.
Similarly down here in Australia. Comedienne Su Cruikshank introduces herself as a "big old lezzo" - like black rappers using the N word or Mel Brooks playing to Jewish stereotypes, apparently it's acceptable if you are part of that demographic.
This post was edited by Slartibartfast at November 8, 2020 4:38 AM MST
I know m'dear. I've seen the word "dyke" used about manly women. I mean there are girly men so it stands to reason there are manly women. I just womder why words have to be made up to describe people due to sexual preferences.I mean love is love. Desire is desire. Who is to say whom we SHOULD LOVE OR DESIRE SEXUALLY? Whose business is it beyond the two? No one's that who and yet you have this maddening crowd of SHOULD DO SHOULD BE out there determining for others what it is OK to be and what it is not. WHO MADE THEM BOSS? Sheesh. Thank you for your reply! :) How does it adversely affect me if two men are married to each other or two women? It doesn't.
Durdle 