241–250 of 870 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt you can make a joke about blowing an airport on any country regardless of your religion and don't expect a visit of the police. It's a very clear exception to freedom of speech.
99% of panic stories about people being arrested for Twitter is this type of stuff
I am not very familiar with the American civil war. The way people talk about it seems weird to me though: it is as though the entire southern United States were overcome by an irresistible race hatred and they started a war in order to ensure their white supremacy- but mostly out of ignorance of the morals of this. I have a hard time believing the entire southern United States was only fighting for the right to own…
The declarations of secession are very explicit that it was about racism and slavery. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... The racism wasn't a sudden thing. What was new was the movement to ban slavery, especially in new states, which would undo the political balance that had been put in the Constitution from the beginning. (The Constitution still gives extra power to those states.) The ele…
The Three Fifths Compromise gave slave states extra power. The 14th Amendment nullified it. The Senate and Electoral College still give less populous states extra power. Most of those were in the north.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Companies should be free to regulate hate speech on their platforms. The government should not regulate speech in the public domain. While I agree, please direct me to where I can speak "in the public domain" online.
You can create your own website and and host it yourself.
How practical is it in reality to be your own ISP, domain registrar, certificate authority, hosting service, web dev agency, and community moderator all in one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It’s apples and oranges. Companies should be free to regulate hate speech on their platforms. The government should not regulate speech in the public domain. The actions of private companies on private property (virtual or otherwise) are an entirely different domain than government intervention. Even if you remove the censorship angle, it can be argued that moderating hate speech is simply good business sense. Pe…
>Companies should be free to regulate hate speech on their platforms. The government should not regulate speech in the public domain. While I agree, please direct me to where I can speak "in the public domain" online.
I am not very familiar with the American civil war. The way people talk about it seems weird to me though: it is as though the entire southern United States were overcome by an irresistible race hatred and they started a war in order to ensure their white supremacy- but mostly out of ignorance of the morals of this. I have a hard time believing the entire southern United States was only fighting for the right to own…
I grew up in the South and there is a certain amount of propaganda about how it was the evil oppressors of the North who wanted to ruin our beautiful lifestyle, but when you get right down to it this beautiful Southern world was built on the backs of a whole lot of dirt-cheap labor in the form of slaves. All the human traffickers sipping mimosas on the verandah of their gorgeous, tree-lined work camps watching the pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>While I agree, please direct me to where I can speak "in the public domain" online. Same place as with pre-online TV and radio I suppose. Free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience at the time and place of your choosing. Take public buildings like a Courthouse or City hall, sure you have Free Speech rights, but good luck interrupting a court hearing to get your message out (without being held in contempt by the J…
Do you not believe that people can stand on a public street corner and express their ideas freely, where many people will likely see and hear them? Your examples are edge cases (court rooms at midnight) that seem designed to suggest that no such places exists. They do exist, and I am asking where is there online version. Are you suggesting that the only way to exchange free speech online is for each passerby to creat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inability of HN commenters to grasp current cultural norms and the sensitivities of the people around them astounds me.
This experience, which you've described well in just one sentence, is actually a consequence of how the site is structured. You might say "well, structure it differently then, so it doesn't suck". But giving up that structure would be bad, because although it is far from pleasant, it contains something that's both valuable and increasingly rare. What we need to do instead is find our way through the difficulty withou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll give you my personal standard: Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? In other words, did they simply act in the context of their time period, as other men in their position would, or did they specifically act to curtail the rights of others. This makes it very easy for me to condemn symbols of the Confederacy, because they specifically acted to preserve slavery. If anyon…
The southern states seceded to preserve slavery; slavery was and is evil and they were wrong to secede in order to preserve it. But secession was and is constitutional, given the Tenth Amendment and no constitutional provisions against secession or mandating a perpetual union; the states had a right to do it, even though it was wrong. The southern armies did not fight for slavery: it was legal in the United States be…
Agree
> "secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible;"
Agree
> "fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy."
Lost me here. Fighting in self defense is understandable and necessary sometimes, but in defense of what principles? Context cannot be ignored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start your own blog. The internet isnt just SV companies. There's nothing stopping you from creating your own platform that espouses your ideals.
I think his point is that at the end of the day, you're going to be dependent on someone. With a self hosted blog you're dependent on at least an ISP and registrar, both of which are private entities.
It sounds like a big part of the problem is that we don't have a truly "public" internet, if the backbone of the internet is a bunch of private entities.
We need a truly decentralized internet that doesn't suck like tor currently does.