That wasn't the point of the discussion we just had. That's a new argument you've just raised. Its existence on Lemmy wasn't the argument being replied to.

But ideally, no one would be on or even visiting twitter (not even to bring content to Lemmy), so what I've said still stands. However I know that's an unlikely and extremist position to adopt IRL... But it also wasn't what I said, or anything I've argued thus far.

I really just came here to say I didn't understand why the first comment was getting downvotes. The rest has been an organic and abstract discussion on a tangent.

Ideally no one should eat at Chick Fillet, no one should use PayPal due to Peter Thiel's involvement, or stay at a Trump hotel... And explaining why these companies are bad, shouldn't get someone downvotes. That's my position, that's the argument I was making.

Ideally, government would have stronger and more defensive capabilities to not be usurped by the Capitalists using these companies as political vehicles and funding sources/campaign pawns in their toxic politics - was my second comment.

However I'm not going to argue that this post or the content its self is toxic still when it's on Lemmy - because that was never my position.

My position was that the thread starter shouldn't be downvoted for saying Twitter is a Nazi platform. That this post has made its way to Lemmy is just a product of the messy realities of how social media is transported from website to website.

That doesn't mean some websites that are noticeable in that process are beyond criticism or that their owners shouldn't be called out on their politics.

Which was being done to Musk/twitter in this case.