"Other platforms cannot replace it," said a senior member of the Taliban in a tweet, explaining that Meta is "intolerant."

Anas Haqqani, a senior leader in the Taliban, has officially endorsed Twitter over Facebook-owned competitor Threads.

“Twitter has two important advantages over other social media platforms,” Haqqani said in an English post on Twitter. “The first privilege is the freedom of speech. The second privilege is the public nature & credibility of Twitter. Twitter doesn’t have an intolerant policy like Meta. Other platforms cannot replace it.”

Twitter has fallen out of favor with many people since Elon Musk took over the company last year…The Taliban, however, seems to love it. Two Taliban officials even bought blue verification check marks after Musk started selling them in January.

Haqqani noted that the biggest draw of Twitter was this lax moderation policy…Facebook and TikTok both view the Taliban as a terrorist organization and disallow them from posting. It’s a ban that persists to this day.

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.worldEnglish
      254·
      1 year ago

      “We should let actual terrorists communicate and radicalize others, because there’s a block button already. PS: I’m very smart.”

        • Rufio@lemm.eeEnglish
          61·
          1 year ago

          How is that hyperbole? That’s essentially what you are suggesting lmao

            • Rufio@lemm.eeEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              Nah if that’s not what you meant you need to work on your writing skills bud.

              Try to understand what you are trying to say before writing it, even if you don’t like it. That will make you less likely to be misunderstood.

        • carbotect@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          You either censor them or you let them radicalize people. There is no inbetween.

          Do you see this differently?

            • carbotect@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              No need to apologize, I understand your viewpoint. I don’t understand your “Lol, nice hyperbole” comment tho.

              "We should let actual terrorists communicate and radicalize others, because there’s a block button already. PS: I’m very smart.” <— Isn’t that exactly what you believe in then?

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      We are enabling them with technology they had no hope to ever develop themselves and using said technology to actively support their thuggish way of life.

      Tell me you would let the women in your family live there.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
          81·
          1 year ago

          Because they are a theocratic despotic thugcracy that is why their only export is refugees and opium.

          And why don’t you answer my question? Would you approve of the women in your family being sent there? Yes or no.

          • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
            23·
            1 year ago

            How does not wanting my family (or myself - not sure why you made it sexist) to live there at all relevant?

            If you want the world to declare unilateral war on authoritarian despot nations I’m all for that, but as I recall that view seems to be “Imperialist.”

            How do you square these feelings in your head?

              • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                1 year ago

                I wasn’t the person you asked, but I am in favor of everyone who wants to escape any authoritarian state to be able to leave.

                In fact, I am for the free movement of people as a natural right, coupled with absolute open borders, defended with military force by a coalition of world governments.

                I am strongly anti-authoritarian. I just don’t see how it is Facebook’s responsibility to effect change in hostile nation-states.