221–230 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The technical problem here is way easier to solve than the social one. You'd want to avoid having hatespeech or some attack being planned on URLs of your blog. This is by definition a tricky problem. Should moderation follow us to the remotest and most deserted corners of the web? Should prying eyes follow humans all the time, even on this abstract ocean of digital content? On technical side I think we'd need some so…
> You'd want to avoid having hatespeech or some attack being planned on URLs of your blog. How could you possibly expect to control people saying things about your blog on a remote webserver? There is no solution that is not worse than the speech. This is not a problem that needs solving.
You're right. My point would make sense only in case of an opt-in solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Data is the payment.
How one would actually pay their server bills with data except by selling that to third parties [replace with your favorite agency]?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was... ugly. And I've seen it before. It seems worse now. I stopped reading when I got to "our race replaced by violent low-iq brown" . (in case anyone wanted to dispute the existence: https://gab.com/HankRearden/posts/MHdqTE1hWDFDTTVTR3Biak1vel... ) That's enough bull for today. Fair warning to anyone else who decides to indulge curiosity.
Rather than pointing at these people from a distance, sign up and talk to them. There is certainly a right-wing bias, sign up and change that? Also, one of the comments below: > Hank here is the only person on the Planet that can turn > Sarcasm into HILARITY........ I don't find it funny or condone it, but perhaps this is some sort of sarcasm. Looking at the account of "hank", they appear to right-wing and politicall…
I have zero interest in talking to them. I've tried. Any argument I've ever encountered has been made in bad faith.
It's not what you called "right wing bias" that I have a problem with and don't want to engage with. I thought that was quite clear in my comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather than pointing at these people from a distance, sign up and talk to them. There is certainly a right-wing bias, sign up and change that? Also, one of the comments below: > Hank here is the only person on the Planet that can turn > Sarcasm into HILARITY........ I don't find it funny or condone it, but perhaps this is some sort of sarcasm. Looking at the account of "hank", they appear to right-wing and politicall…
No. His "sarcasm" was that he now supports "flooding" the country with what he called "violent low-iq brown". I have zero interest in talking to them. I've tried. Any argument I've ever encountered has been made in bad faith. It's not what you called "right wing bias" that I have a problem with and don't want to engage with. I thought that was quite clear in my comment.
> country with what he called "violent low-iq brown".
Again: "I don't find it funny or condone it". But, how do you know he isn't sarcastically echoing the point of view of a far-right person, or what other people believe his opinion should be? I think that given the right context (and/or delivery) this could be a joke to mock people for example.
> I have zero interest in talking to them. I've tried. Any
> argument I've ever encountered has been made in bad faith.
Whether you've given up or not, they exist and will continue to exist. They lay the bricks, they hold political positions and they teach your kids. These people exist everywhere in society and somehow we need to work together for the betterment (and survival) of humanity. Given how important us working together is, I feel obliged to understand them.
> It's not what you called "right wing bias" that I have a
> problem with and don't want to engage with. I thought that
> was quite clear in my comment.
I didn't suggest you did, I'm just saying that you are able to neutralize the perceived political/ideological bias of the platform with your own thoughts and ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was... ugly. And I've seen it before. It seems worse now. I stopped reading when I got to "our race replaced by violent low-iq brown" . (in case anyone wanted to dispute the existence: https://gab.com/HankRearden/posts/MHdqTE1hWDFDTTVTR3Biak1vel... ) That's enough bull for today. Fair warning to anyone else who decides to indulge curiosity.
Rather than pointing at these people from a distance, sign up and talk to them. There is certainly a right-wing bias, sign up and change that? Also, one of the comments below: > Hank here is the only person on the Planet that can turn > Sarcasm into HILARITY........ I don't find it funny or condone it, but perhaps this is some sort of sarcasm. Looking at the account of "hank", they appear to right-wing and politicall…
However, everything I saw on the front page of that website is worse than I've heard even the most drunken, politically minded conservatives that I have met. The beliefs espoused on the front page of that site, keeping in mind this is not even "fringe" for that community, are all things that would elicit immediate removal from any other community that I am a part of; some of that is because of optics, some of it is because of the demographics (PoC, Religion).
I do not desire to engage in rhetoric with someone who photoshops a Nazi SS uniform onto their profile picture and calls for the eradication, in whole or in part, of an ethnic group (this is the definition of genocide). I am fully in agreement with the idea that, on a level playing field, even one whose beliefs are dangerous can be made to feel empathetic and see different views; however, the community of that website seems to be acting entirely in bad faith when it comes to discussion.
I do not desire to participate in a public forum full of bad actors and those debating in bad faith. This says to me that those in that forum are entrenched in their beliefs, and use it as an escape from debate; I, too, have these spaces, and this site for one is even one of those for me.
The act of engaging with people who self identify as Nazis and Race Realists is one of extreme exhaustion and endless rhetorical debate, subjective to extreme attempts of trolling and fallacious bad-faithed arguments. This is what Gab has showed itself to be for me. If you have a different experience there, feel free to point it out to me.
All of this is ignoring the foundation upon which the platform was created on, which has its roots here.
A long time ago, there was a W3C standard for this called web annotations². It never really caught on, possibly because people and organizations were expected to host their own annotation servers. NCSA Mosaic had the feature back in 1993. Check out this post from Marc Andreesen on the www-talk list: http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q2/0416.ht... A rather obscure browser by the W3C called Annotea also…
The Genius Web Annotator [1] was quite popular (and funded by Andreessen), though since the pivot into a media company, I believe it's no longer actively developed. Hypothesis (Hypothes.is) [2] is active [3] and awesome. They are involved in the Web Annotation standardization efforts. [1]: https://genius.com/web-annotator [2]: https://web.hypothes.is/ [3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01427-9
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Genius Web Annotator [1] was quite popular (and funded by Andreessen), though since the pivot into a media company, I believe it's no longer actively developed. Hypothesis (Hypothes.is) [2] is active [3] and awesome. They are involved in the Web Annotation standardization efforts. [1]: https://genius.com/web-annotator [2]: https://web.hypothes.is/ [3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01427-9
I was an avid Hypothesis user but since I moved from Chrome to Firefox I stopped using it entirely, waiting for their Firefox extension. It's been years since they promised it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. His "sarcasm" was that he now supports "flooding" the country with what he called "violent low-iq brown". I have zero interest in talking to them. I've tried. Any argument I've ever encountered has been made in bad faith. It's not what you called "right wing bias" that I have a problem with and don't want to engage with. I thought that was quite clear in my comment.
> No. His "sarcasm" was that he now supports "flooding" the > country with what he called "violent low-iq brown". Again: "I don't find it funny or condone it". But, how do you know he isn't sarcastically echoing the point of view of a far-right person, or what other people believe his opinion should be? I think that given the right context (and/or delivery) this could be a joke to mock people for example. > I have ze…
And no, these kinds of people don't teach my children. People who make remarks like that in an Ontario school would be in real hot water. Even if it's a "joke".
And yes, "joke" is in quotes for a reason. It's not a new phenomenon: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/23/alt-right...
It's not about politics, man. I was very clear.