141–150 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They are all hate speech, because the definition of hate speech does not distinguish between which groups are protected and which are not. If you yell that, and then attack a member of the relevant group, then you can and should be charged with a hate crime. The supreme court has ruled on this. It is not controversial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who post those things also use the internet, email, chat apps, social media and everything else. At some point you have to accept that people can say and do what they want and only they are responsible for it. Gab is no different than any other social media site in that what you see is a function of who you follow, but gab has no moderation at all so you will see things you don’t like more often. It is wha…
> Gab is no different than any other social media site in that what you see is a function of who you follow > At some point you have to accept that people can say and do what they want and only they are responsible for it. I could not disagree with you more. It is very different and they are known as a haven for some of the vilest viewpoints out there. These fringe viewpoints reach a larger audience and bad things ha…
I had heard about Gab but never visited the site before. I just spent 30 seconds perusing the trending feed. I saw the following: 1. a video of a man being shot and killed during an armed robbery 2. 3 anti islam posts 3. the usual pro trump propaganda 4. a meme warning about the evils of feminism urging women to get back to their "place" in the family. Gab is a festering pile of trash. Anyone responsible for making a…
Every time someone sets out to create a completely unmoderated free speech platform, it immediately becomes an object lesson in why people moderate platforms.
As much as I hate the bad parts of Gab, I am glad they are standing up to their principles of being a truly free speech social network. The other social networks just love to censor everybody they disagree with, even a particular orange looking website. I am also excited and glad they are utilising open source software as well. (This was bound to happen sooner or later) This can make activitypub & decentralised netwo…
I don't share any such appreciation for Gab. IMO, "free speech" in this case was a thinly veiled excuse for white supremacism, which has plenty of other homes on the internet. The developers of Gab chose to devote substantial portions of their lives to creating a platform for people who promote ethnic cleansing and the suppression of minorities. I don't think it's possible to do that without your eyes wide open, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conclusion I always seem to come to is you eventually want to be able to trust those within your network. I believe that requires some level of initial openness to prove who you are to a personally selected authority you decide to trust, who can verify your identity, and then allow you to communicate/engage with your real name or one-to-many pseudonyms, so if your actions are outside whatever rules exist for that…
The conversation here goes pretty well, no real names required. I actually think it's the opposite, real names bring in our real world problems and identities. A fresh name is a fresh start and maybe you take the chance to do better this time. It seems like people feel free to post the most atrocious nonsense on Facebook under their real name or maybe using one of the apparently billions of fake accounts that look ju…
Part of atrocious nonsense, as you put you, is lack of accountability and peer pressure with enough mass to influence one's behaviour and thinking. Bubbles of algorithms amplify this problem, and what ends up happening is like with Gab - where what most consider atrocious behaviour simply finds its own platform which creates a bubble of its own without algorithms.
Fake accounts as you mention, is one reason associating with an identity - at least confirmation it is associated with an identity, needs a solution. This becomes a problem when there isn't a chain of command and clear rules for accessing this information, when government is corrupt by bad actors. I'm not saying this identity should be forced on people, they should realize it is beneficial to join a network they trust until they don't - if that happens. With Facebook as an example, they've violated trust of people countless times and yet many still have FB accounts. If data and people were more mobile, more able to move their data around, then people could easily change networks - and let's say their alliances based on the leadership. Is the person in charge, leading a platform/network, someone who in the past called their users "dumb fucks" for trusting them with their data more favourable/trustworthy or someone who addresses issues with authenticity, fully, and while perhaps acknowledging their own mistakes vs. trying to write their bad past behaviour out of the story by not acknowledging it as pivotal moments of growth? Who they'd want at lead is of course for each person to decide based on what resonates with them as trustworthy, what behaviour they align with.
Trust does work on internet conversations, assuming you've developed that skill - or could call it developing your intuition - assuming that your trust systems aren't locked up (ego mind coping mechanism) from trauma - which I'd say in this day is very common. Trust isn't binary - like with our conversation here, I'm sure you trust what I'm saying more than not - whether by the structure of my words and my trying to be careful and clear with my words and meaning, my responses. I'd trust my mother to pick me up somewhere if she says she will, however not with certain other things. And it's true, there will be a percentage of people who are really good at deceiving, being pathological liars, sociopaths, however that's certainly not the majority or where they're purposefully trying to sway someone for their own selfish gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time someone sets out to create a completely unmoderated free speech platform, it immediately becomes an object lesson in why people moderate platforms.
Why do you think it's unmoderated? I saw this same statement in another comment and pulled up their guidelines: https://gab.com/about/guidelines . Essentially they aim to moderate according to US law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in... This is not the duty of client applications. Banning instances is the duty of the operators of individual instances, and the instance(s) on which you have your account(s) are the instance(s) whose blocking policy affects you. This is a feature. Most sane instances on the Fediverse already ban extremist and al…
> This is not the duty of client applications. It might become their duty. Since Gab's apps are banned, and those apps would be used to access Gab's servers, I could see Apple/Google blocking Mastodon apps as well. App creators might be forced to ban Gab in order to avoid getting banned from the app stores.
I don’t think we should be advocating for app stores to exert any more control over generic client software than they already have.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) - "Gab is an English-language social media website, launched publicly in 2017, known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] ... Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content[24] and the platform itself has engaged in an…
Mastodon is like email. How do email users feel about other people sending nazi stuff via email?
These things take time to change. There will be an adjustment period during which Gab's hate content will spill over into other Mastodon environments. Like a spam senders list, Mastodon environments will need to continuously update the list of blocked Gab/hate group instances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is a fact, not an opinion
I’m not saying I disagree, since I haven’t seen any evidence one way or the other, but maybe you or jtr1 could provide some evidence for those who haven’t been following Gab?
Oh, the Mastodon community is going to be ticked about this... Purism said Librem One's server wasn't going to police speech, and they were upset about it. Gab is a whole different level. I think ActivityPub has huge potential to be a way for communities of disparate views and perspectives to exist out there, and two distinct and very opposing groups have grasped onto it: People who want space spaces who don't think…
> People who want space spaces who don't think mainstream platforms moderate enough, and the alt-right and free speech crowd. I've never really understood the 'safe spaces' line of argument. I'm a 30 year old white male, and whenever I log onto YouTube I see nothing but recommendations trying to force me down the alt-right rabbit hole. Sure, Twitter has booted off a few high profile people on the alt right but I don'…