Yet they see no irony in being self-appointed arbiters of who gets to say what including heads of state. By their very own statement they are violating the human rights of others by censoring and deplatforming users are they not?
But their argument is that access to the internet in its entirety - whether Twitter or Mastodon or Hacker News or Stormfront or Substack or Zombo - is an essential human right, and a government should not block its people from any one site. Which is a fair statement. Twitter hosts who they want to host, Stormfront hosts who they want to host, and the government should get in the way of neither.
On the other hand not only is my government actively trying to make it a criminal offence to participate in discussions on Twitter, they have already mobilised the ISPs to block actual access to the platform itself (some people are currently circumventing that with VPNs, but we all know that they (especially the free ones) are not bulletproof).
The abuse of state power should be obvious, especially to the people on here who claim to care about censorship, but they seem to be too caught up in scoring a petty point against a platform they don't like. As I've said elsewhere, I wonder if they think of us Nigerians as real people at all.
This one has the most comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27404125
