This for sure. Also you can use more of the scientific method than might occur in many situations too, for example you can record events and what you witness even when you can't control or perfectly describe what's happening. That's definitely not comparable to most scientific evidence we use in society now but it's still better than nothing for trial and error and more generalised wisdom and learning.

You can't successfully engage meaningfully with substance that presupposes something that is meaningless. Essentially if we can't agree on definitions then no meaningful speech can take place.

There are other ways, such as personal experience, you can know something about yourself. But scientific evidence is the best way to demonstrate a truth you have come across to others and so be able to more easily get them to act on it and organise with that truth in mind. Science, like democracy, isn't perfect, it's just the best solution to a problem we've come up with so far.

This is the photo we've been waiting for, the chosen one.

Interesting, thanks for sharing your view

So you'd say an even harder line than me? As in that the platform benefits from being used and owned by the west or America and so should walk the line everyone else in that situation has to, i.e not supporting Russia and no spreading of ISIS messages?

For me that's a harder line to reach because then you're saying they can't be publicly discussed and I think it's important to do so because if they have any value at all we want to separate the value from their behaviours and if they don't we want to be able to show that in a way that demonstrates confidence.

If I've misunderstood you or if you have another take I'd be happy to hear it though.

I like legal eagle, (I just realised both words use the same letters haha) so I'll definitely watch this later. Thanks for the link

Then how does the supreme court know it's Isis posting?

That's one way to dismiss what I just said I suppose.

Not if you believe that they shouldn't be hosting actual russian government agents. Russian sympathizers is so broad a term as to be useless. The comparison I'd draw would be to actual government agents. Those are the people from ISIS I'd want to stop, people who actually work for them. Not just some dickhead in his basement living in the west going "oh I love ISIS".

In this comparison you could take the people suffering under Isis rule and twitter the technology as analogous. That being they're being used against their will to prop up something that they shouldn't be used to prop up. Putin, ISIS members power and the spreading of ISIS propaganda.

To that end if the people who own Twitter, the platform, aren't able or willing to stop them being used then they shouldn't benefit from any of the things that come from being housed in the west, just the same as people who break the embargo against Russia should face consequences too.

Aren't we then treating Twitter more as a technology than as a company. And aren't we considering ourselves at war with Isis? Either way we enact sanctions against anyone working with Russia, who aren't directly at war with, why should someone who works with ISIS be treated any differently?

For me the line isn't about individuals, it's about groups. ISIS shouldn't get better treatment or exceptions in places we wouldn't make them for Russia.

Is twitter arguing that ISIS is not a terrorist organisation? If not then they have no other cards to play.

Some of us will finally get laid