101–110 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK that's the origin of the "QAnon" shit too, so I'm not sure that really contradicts much.
I thought the Wayfair theory originated on Reddit, r/conspiracy ?
The USA is such a mess. Can't have free speech because too many voters are conspiracy nuts. Can't ban content because free speech. The level of ignorance has to be seen to be believed, on sites like 4chan. Education can clear this impasse, but is it too late?
For the uniformed: At least, long ago, in the beginning of 4chan, nobody believed this. They purposely made it up for fun and trolling. I seriously don't understand how there are some people unaware of this. They then purposely pushed it from 4chan to places it would be believed, other forms of social media like Facebook. The general populace (of social media users) are the ones who eat it up. They eat shit up from a…
Watching the movie Slackers (2002) recently was eye opening. You'd think this weird conspiracy thing was recent, but Slackers shows it predated the mass adoption of the internet.
I find it hard to imagine where this ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A group of communists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
First of all, from this link: > was a militant anti-fascist organisation, emphasis mine. People who self-identify as anti-fascist nowadays have little to do with communism. Why not link this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism Second of all, is "communist" a slur on HN? Is that supposed to sound scary or something?
But I’ve never met someone complaining about them who could name one of them. It’s like some Boys of Brazil meets George Soros thing with them.
but, of course, im small. the relative harm to the extremist is small. they can find another place to spread their awful message. but what if i'm bigger? what if i have monopolized a large portion of political speech within a country? what if my platform is the primary communication channel for the president of the united states? do i then have an obligation to provide a platform to that speech?
what if myself and a few friends own such a significant share of the internet that we can effectively remove extremists from all online participation. they cant host a server. they cant register a domain. they cant use private messenger apps. they cant send or receive money.
to what degree can a person be ostracized from society for having an unpopular opinion.
i certainly don't agree with the views of the taliban. i certainly wouldn't want to be complicit in the hosting of those views. but i have to wonder, if "illegitimate" speech can be removed by a small minority of corporate leaders how long is it before "legitimate" speech is removed?
can a democratic society really exist where all opinions are filtered through a corporate elite? can "problematic" speech be allowed to exist so long as it doesn't call for violence? are calls to violence always evil?
the BLM protests have certainly made calls to violence. should the cause for racial equality be stopped because it offends or threatens a minority (or even a majority) of people? couldnt' the BLM protest be construed as "problematic" or "illegitimate" and removed from the civil discourse overnight?
im asking because i don't know what to do. there doesn't seem to be a clear path forward. there is no "public square" on the internet. its all private. but there's no one left in the "real" public square. the one in meat space. the "public square" has moved onto private property and there's no way to get it back.
The USA is such a mess. Can't have free speech because too many voters are conspiracy nuts. Can't ban content because free speech. The level of ignorance has to be seen to be believed, on sites like 4chan. Education can clear this impasse, but is it too late?
Free speech the concept is different from the First Amendment, which is different from private companies and private property. The fringes will always be there, they're just more visible and vocal now. The real issue is whether a platform will choose to be moderated or not, and what tools it offers to users to control their experience. All major platforms are still working on that balance, especially as they become i…
And the fringes have enlisted bots to amplify their message, which includes accusations of serious criminal behavior with no evidence that would stand up in court.
I suspect media platforms won't actually be able to fix these problems because they are codependent on the outrage that they create.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't compare banning people from twitter and exterminating Jews. The two aren't comparable.
They are though. Please don’t deny that. The two are comparable.
Sure, you can write the words that compare them. No, you should not.