>it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content.
This is a bold claim. I see a lot of people in this discussion that seem to have a very different experience. Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content".
>what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?
From what I've been able to tell the last several years, the overwhelming majority of your ideological opponents here have no interest in visiting physical harm upon others simply because of how they view and present themselves. They just don't want to be, or feel, compelled to treat the other person's self-image as an objective fact. Some of them additionally have concerns about capacity of minors to give informed consent for the related medical procedures, or consider it suspicious that the prevalence of such self-identification has risen drastically in recent years (to the point that they imagine social pressures toward such identification).
>Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.
I have seen statements like this from your opponents interpreted as veiled threats in the past.
> Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content".
I think it's extremely likely that people will see the "de-ranking" of content they agree with as bias, regardless of their place on the spectrum.
Similar: "Biden must have committed election fraud, because all of my friends voted for Trump and I don't know anyone who voted for Biden." (previous election, obviously) Well, is that because no-one voted for Biden, or that the friends/content you see is tuned to how you lean.
This is a bold claim. I see a lot of people in this discussion that seem to have a very different experience. Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content".
>what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?
From what I've been able to tell the last several years, the overwhelming majority of your ideological opponents here have no interest in visiting physical harm upon others simply because of how they view and present themselves. They just don't want to be, or feel, compelled to treat the other person's self-image as an objective fact. Some of them additionally have concerns about capacity of minors to give informed consent for the related medical procedures, or consider it suspicious that the prevalence of such self-identification has risen drastically in recent years (to the point that they imagine social pressures toward such identification).
>Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.
I have seen statements like this from your opponents interpreted as veiled threats in the past.