It’s more that this change might allow that to stay or be non-reportable depending on the mod. It lends that form of content the air of legitimacy, even if refuted. They would likely cite this rule change if asked to stop. And it’s just exhausting to have to see that. Maybe, in an ideal implementation, this won’t cover that kind of lead and this form of harassment disguised as ignorance will still be removed. I’m just not that hopeful…
I appreciate that. This rule change in the face of what Meta is doing on Facebook has me wildly on edge.
Cool, totally looking forward to having to “debate” people that my identity isn’t mental illness. Sure am happy I get to dust off my refutation of that “occasionally”. You can say what you want, as long as you word it right. Just be inquisitive! I can see the “toilets” now: “Oh gee whiz mister, I sure do not understand why you think you’re a lady. I heard it was a mental illness. Can you explain it to me? I pwomise to respect you and leave my anecdotes out.”
EDIT: There’s someone replying to this from lemm.ee whose replies I cannot see because my instance banned them for transphobia. To that person: I’m pretty much referencing you.
Some could afford to leave, but we should encourage people to try and change things where they work. Abandoning or avoiding it isn’t the only way. I read your comment to suggest that they shouldn’t complain or try to get the policy changed back. It seems you were suggesting they should leave, even if they can’t get an equivalent job. Does that sound right?
What a wild take. Up until now there were at least protections present for the platform. And what’s your message here? “Stifle your career because Zuck is a bigot”? “Accept less pay or shut up and accept abuse”?
OP is Lt. Dan.
You could lie about Joe Rogan to Joe Rogan’s face. He’ll even nod his empty bald little head while you do it before taking another toke and injecting ivermectin into his eyeballs or something