01-04-2024, 07:40 PM
I also don't think "weaponizing past tweets" is quite the same thing, since in a sane world, "exposing" your past tweets shouldn't generally have any well-defined consequences, unlike clear examples of academic dishonesty
there are few legal or regulatory reasons why bringing up past tweets or posts should matter, the fact that they're still online and up on the platform implies they were fine to post and don't break any TOS, and the consequences are fuzzy, like how cancel-able are you if it's discovered that you said "fag" once 20 years ago?
exposing tweets is to impose social consequences, make the uninformed say "my god, what an awful person" and join in, without them knowing that you wanted their help in cancelling the person, an obvious attempt at stirring up trouble
whereas plagiarism already has clear rules against it, there's no statute of limitations, and it's a pretty clear-cut and obvious situation of wrongdoing
there are few legal or regulatory reasons why bringing up past tweets or posts should matter, the fact that they're still online and up on the platform implies they were fine to post and don't break any TOS, and the consequences are fuzzy, like how cancel-able are you if it's discovered that you said "fag" once 20 years ago?
exposing tweets is to impose social consequences, make the uninformed say "my god, what an awful person" and join in, without them knowing that you wanted their help in cancelling the person, an obvious attempt at stirring up trouble
whereas plagiarism already has clear rules against it, there's no statute of limitations, and it's a pretty clear-cut and obvious situation of wrongdoing
1 user liked this post: