51–60 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.
Same "mental gymnastics" that were used to go to war against nazis in WW2, yes. Was that wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither browser allows sideloaded extensions in its standard build: Chrome: > As of Chrome 33, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Windows (see Protecting Windows users from malicious extensions). As of Chrome 44, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Mac (see Continuing to protect Chrome users from malicious extensions). https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external…
Sure you can. You can load unpacked extensions in Chrome - I do it all the time when developing extensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even a little. If you actually have an argument, do make it.
Fair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you go out looking for it, you will find a LOT more of that stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Patreon (Search for it) and Reddit. Gab is a free speech platform - similar to how phone carriers aren't held liable for what people speak on it, same way for Gab. It's not Gab's responsibility if the users are talking garbage.
I didn't go looking for it. I literally went to the page of the most popular posts, and scrolled down a couple of times. It absolutely, 100% is Gab's responsibility for not policing their platform. In fact, they invite this kind of behaviour. This is exactly what they want on their site.
Same way Google isn't held liable for hosting illegal pirated content as long as they take it down. But you can't go sue Google because they show you news about something which you find offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Far left is no better than far right - nobody is even listening to each other anymore.
The far left is not killing people . The far right is, in significant numbers. Do you see a difference now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even a little. If you actually have an argument, do make it.
Fair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, through long-term building of trust and deep personal relationships. This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.
I would argue that internet comments section is exactly what's needed actually. Simply banning them away is basically hiding it under the rug. But that's not going to do anything productive. Banning them will now re-enforce their beliefs and now they will just go to another platform which will be an echo chamber of even more similar "hate" views. This brings up 2 problems - 1. Now we don't even know what they are tal…
There will always be hardcore hateful people who hide deep in the pockets of the internet. The point is to not normalise them, not let them spread their hatred in public, and not to make people think that sort of attitude is ok.
They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Not sure what your definition of "hate speech" is but if it includes racism, then yes, racists can change their mind: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-sou...
"You can't argue people out of their beliefs" is an acceptable generalization because it's mostly true. There are exceptions, but, for the most part, when a progressive talks to a fascist, for example, there is likely to be little movement in the beliefs of either. In fact, their views are likely to become more entrenched. https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html Long-term conversation can and does…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't go looking for it. I literally went to the page of the most popular posts, and scrolled down a couple of times. It absolutely, 100% is Gab's responsibility for not policing their platform. In fact, they invite this kind of behaviour. This is exactly what they want on their site.
I would disagree. There is a difference between publisher and platform. If Gab was publishing illegal stuff themselves, then it would be different. Gab actively takes down speech which is illegal (action to violence type). But simple hate speech (even if it's offensive and rude) is still free speech and legally covered by the first amendment in the US. Same way Google isn't held liable for hosting illegal pirated con…
They invite the worst kind of hatemongers to their site. That makes them as bad in my books. If all you care about is whether they are following the letter of the law or not, that is a very naïve and childish view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would disagree. There is a difference between publisher and platform. If Gab was publishing illegal stuff themselves, then it would be different. Gab actively takes down speech which is illegal (action to violence type). But simple hate speech (even if it's offensive and rude) is still free speech and legally covered by the first amendment in the US. Same way Google isn't held liable for hosting illegal pirated con…
The law does not define morals, or ethics. They invite the worst kind of hatemongers to their site. That makes them as bad in my books. If all you care about is whether they are following the letter of the law or not, that is a very naïve and childish view.