941–950 of 1001 posts
UPDATE - It's now back up on ZeroNet. Install & run https://zeronet.io/ and then go to http://127.0.0.1:43110/1DdPHedr5Tz55EtQWxqvsbEXPdc4uCVi9D Amusingly, it's now the #1 site on ZeroNet, with even more users than then ZeroNet homepage.
However, for better or worse, pandoras box of decentralized uncensurable internet for the masses is now officially open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, I don't think my freedom of speech should trump Cloudflare's or Voxility's right to freedom of association. Right, but those only produce a conflict in a very specific case and your right to free speech should be defended by your government/peers regardless of where you do the caching for your blog (or whatever). I have a huge issue with this modern relativist approach, because it leads to the situatio…
I sympathize with this argument, but it has several problems: Rights and wrongs are inherently social constructs. The is no (currently) discovered moral potential in the laws of the universe, nor is there a well defined, clearly bounded, definition of life. I would argue that relativism is in fact the fundamental construct, and that societies only arise in the unstable balances between extremes. That's not to say tha…
This is an assumption, and not on supported by debates in ethics. Once you start questioning everything, you'll see that some moral propositions appear to be unassailable, in that, no argument can simultaneously question the truth of the proposition without also descending into logical incoherency. The categorical imperative would be one such approach, although not the only one.
There are good reasons why most philosophers are moral realists.
Cause the guy could've gone to any other fringe site to get inspired by, just like he could have gone to any other gun dealer to get armed by.
One of these two things isn't a motherfucking big elephant in a room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But rights are inherently social No, the founding fathers specifically said that freedom of speech is a God given right and not something which the government gives to a person, instead the government simply recognizes that right. They specifically said freedom of speech is a "Natural" right. Right to clean water is not a right, right to education is not a natural right in their terms. Right to speech, right to sel…
The founding fathers enumerated rights like "free speech" because those were novel (not entirely new, but fairly novel) notions at the time. What many folks (often, seemingly willingly) fail to understand is that those rights were never intended to be parsed in a naive, simplistic way that supersedes the rights of others. The most obvious example would be speech that causes others to be killed: you have a right to fr…
Any argument otherwise should be met with harsh skepticism because you could be actively trying to oppress us again or accidentally enable some future people in power to be able to.
My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…
>The concept of freedom of speech falls apart if universally reprehensible speech is allowed to be publicaly espoused without being firmly challenged. Forums like 8chan and 4chan effectively incubate hate speech by providing a safe space for anonymized, like-minded individuals to congregate, espouse their basest thoughts and feelings and receive gratification for it -all without challenge. Moderate people are repulse…
This is a common narrative, but it depends on an empirical question of whether hate spreads online and whether this motivates action. Fortunately, studies suggest that online talk does not motivate action:
https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-a...
To summarize: the internet does not accelerate the process of radicalization, it does not provide opportunities to self-radicalize, and it does not allow radicalization without physical contact with other radicals. So the empirical evidence does not entirely agree with your characterization of 8chan's role in radicalization.
My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…
It's too bad that people today worry so incessantly that somebody, somewhere, might disagree with them. We're on the brink of losing it all because of that.
My Grandfather fought in WWI. Actually fought. Made it home alive but died from complications of his wounds. They people who died in that war believed in things like our Constitution and freedom from tyranny. And here is history repeating itself all over again.
When you stifle speech, you are going to get that big war all over again, mark my words. People are already lining up just in hopes of getting a single shot at taking down their tormentors.
Also, HN is censoring people like me--I get 2 posts a day because my ideas aren't in line with their own. Thing is, my ideas aren't even particularly radical. I mean, free markets? Capitalism? Really? Are we that far gone?
Damn I hate this site. What are you going to do after every opinion that is different than yours is eradicated from the Internet? Do you think all these people are just going to roll over and die? There is a seething anger rising all over and you're sleepwalking right into a major conflict over this. But that's what you want, isn't it? You think you can win this, but you can't.
On the other hand as deplatforming becomes a norm perhaps we could see a rise in demand for decentralized platforms like IPFS or ActivityPub.
My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…
Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. It draws a fine line between what's acceptable speech and what is not. And going by it, things like 8chan should get shut down. The line of thought you put forward, by contrast, rubs me in a very wrong way. It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis th…
This is incorrect. Popper does not say intolerance should not be permitted, he said that we should not extend unlimited tolerance, and he expands by saying that only intolerance that cannot be countered by rational debate should be impermissible. Clearly escalation to violence is a form of intolerance that cannot be countered by rational debate but it's not clear at all what else should fall under this criteria.
This is clearly a very different claim that does not support your narrative, and instead, shows how your view is just another form of intolerance that we should oppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Give an inch give a mile" It's the ability to chip away at free speech. First 8chan, then something else that's bad, then something slightly intolerant, then what? Is it really worth censoring when something else will pop up to take it's place? Monitor and move on.
I see you have invoked the Slippery Slope fallacy, which is primarily a way to sidestep talking about the actual issue at hand by comparing it to hypothetical events. What's not hypothetical is that scores of people are dying in the meantime. Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would suppo…
I have a feeling 8chan and Video Games and guns are not the issue here but structural social problems with America.