491–500 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds a lot like you are deliberately seeking bias-confirming right wing propaganda!
I want the truth. That's something all US media is failing to give us right now.
What truth is this you are so deprived of? I presume you have some "real" source of truth that's more reliable than media that fact-checks itself and issues corrections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think this is because Google cares about hate speech. Google is simply using hate speech as an excuse to get rid of apps that it doesn't like. Deciding which apps you like and which you don't isn't that hard of a line to draw.
That's precisely what they are doing. They don't care about hate speech. If they did, they wouldn't have Trump ads on the YouTube banner. This is justification to get rid of apps they don't like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google regardless of it's size is still private, and should be allowed to host who it wants or doesn't, same as you should be forced to host visitors you dont want. Free speech is that they shouldn't be a law by a government to punish expression of ideas or opinions. citizens or companies should be allowed to host and not host whoever they want.
> citizens or companies should be allowed to host and not host whoever they want. So should ISPs be allowed to not deliver a website (say Netflix's) content to you unless you pay extra?
I wouldn't like it but it's their network, i would hope that that wouldn't be a good business decision and their competitors would not do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The line of thinking seems to be: "Gab's target demographic is users that have been banned from the mainstream platforms for hate speech and conspiracies. Therefore by targeting those users, it's 'purpose built' for hate speech and conspiracies.". My question is, can't you apply this to basically anything that's "free speech"? The mechanism seems to be that most people are content with the mainstream platforms, and t…
If your site has been overrun by ultra-far-right types for basically its entire existence and you do nothing to mitigate this then you're very clearly complicit. But you're right, most of the "no moderation, anything goes" online communities tend to be overrun by extremists but it's easy to see why: you only need a minority of very dedicated trolls posting outrageous content 24/7 to ruin a community. It takes time an…
How do you mitigate without running counter to the original idea of "free speeech"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyone agrees that hate speech is bad but does everyone agree on what hate speech is? That's the danger. You can just claim any opinion you don't like is hate speech. You can say endorsing a particular candidate is hate speech and those people can justifiably be censored; their views invalid (and in some places; justifiably killed). It was once considered offensive, in many places a crime, to say homosexuality is…
Does everyone agree on what murder is? Of course not. Does that mean murder should be legal?
> Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship , but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. We can argue about whether or not Google should ban certain opinions on their platform, or where the line should be drawn, but it is arguable that hey have the legal right to do so. An…
That's a clever trick. Make the medium you want to censor a private property than it's legal.
When I opened up YT Music today, almost the entire scree was taken up by a link to a political playlist. I don't want to participate in politics — I just want to listen to some background music while I work. Why is Googling silencing one bunch of creators and promoting another bunch? How is this good for Google, the country or the world?
Big tech is directly influencing people today in the way so many screamed "The Russians" were influencing us in 2016 (and back during McCarthy). I have a 500GB microSD card on my phone with all my music. I've been collecting it for decades, many from artists I meet in bars and pubs. I buy off Bandcamp when I have to, which only charges 15%, compared to Google/Amazon/Apple which charge 30%+, or streaming services that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An electricity company is a utility however. They're a natural monopoly in a way that a "website" can't be If [large social media platform] doesn't want that kind of content, it's not unreasonable to simply make one to soak up that "ignored" market segment. Reddit can't shut you down for hosting your own internet forum for instance
Interestingly, L.A.’s mayor has threatened as well as executed water service disruption to people hosting large parties. I get why one might want to do that, but I don’t think it’s the right precedent to set.
he's ineffective with the power he has, can't get the homeless off the streets, can't build housing or make it affordable, can't improve educational outcomes, can't reduce unemployment and underemployment, has no real empathy for regular people (despite his emotion-laden language, and spanish!), and yet he wants to reach into our private lives and coerce behavior at the margin (saying this despite wholly agreeing that house parties are a terrible idea right now, but let's persuade, not force, and have a dialogue).
the irony is that angelenos have been an exceedingly compliant group to his orders, adhering to both lockdown and _outdoor_ mask mandates at upwards of 95%. even if some of that is social signaling, that's startlingly high, making any a dictator proud. and yet he wants more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the 'App Stores'. Think of them as retail outlets, in a mall. Do you see shady stuff going on there? Would 'The Gap' sell porn to increase profits by 15%? Of course not. And for obvious reasons. We shouldn't think of 'App Stores' as some kind of truly open marketplaces, any more than a shopping mall is. What we need is just more independent means of distribution.
Shopping Malls can have Sex Shops. Play and AppStore don't allow them.
Why do people find a corner-case of an analogy, and somehow think it negates the analogy?
It's just an analogy.
Of course 'some malls have sex shops' - but obviously, most of them don't.
The vast majority of corps don't want their brands anywhere near porn, sex, guns, politics, hate/contentious speech etc..
Most decent malls are actually selective of who they want in there, and the 'other residents' of the mall have a say as well.
There are an infinite number of places porn/guns/politics can be sold, so that's not a problem, it's just not going to be in a system wherein the other players are wary of it.
It's actually good reason why we need a lot of alternative points of distribution.
I wonder if there should even be some legislation around that, in terms of the kinds of app stores that are preloaded must be more 'open' and that alternative options must be provided very easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historic revisionism as an subgroup of hate speech is a prime example of slippery slope and moving of definition. I would add "fake news" to hate speech.
sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say. Holocaust denial is generally considered to be both historical revisionism and hate speech, the former being a tool for the latter. Is this just semantics?
I feel that when it comes to Google its not about if it is hate speech or not, but who controls it. I.e. Zuckerberg is fine although there are multiple long-lasting Facebook groups that have been used to incite crimes, but Aaron Swartz would not be (today). It is quite amusing how Facebook is not shut down in Europe even though many European countries would shut down any local company being so lax and arbitrary with moderation as Facebook.