561–570 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because the airwaves are public, so the FCC could regulate / require equal time in the public interest. A TV or radio station isn't operating entirely on its own dime - it's using a public resource, so it should be done in the public interest. There was no fairness doctrine applied to, say, newspapers.
The internet is a public resource.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gab bans people openly and credulously discussing marxism. I have experimented with and experienced this directly. So, it fails my litmus test for "an uncensored platform." And it's a bit comical, because Gab as a community experience is much smaller (in my perspective) from even weird sites like minds or funky social blockchain plays. Why they felt the need to ban discusions of marxism or a general strike is beyond…
You can discuss marxism and general strikes on the lemmy instance https://chapo.chat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well a bunch of people are running around now saying speech is violence...so in the not too distant future we might be saying someone was murdered by words.
There have always been limitations on freedom of speech, including speech that incites violence. So your example, while deliberately hyperbolic (I don't think anyone would say that words literally murder people), has always been a normal thing.
It's not hyperbolic at all, or have you not seen the "Silence is Violence" rhetoric everywhere? It could literally come from Orwell's world of "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
The book, The Coddling of the American Mind, does a great job of showing how the goalposts for what is and isn't violent have been moved considerably in the past few years in academic circles.
Finally, violence is okay, so long as it's against the "wrong people," like the professor who was put on probation for assaulting an opposing party member with a bicycle lock, or the guy in Charlottesville who was fined $1 for assault:
https://battlepenguin.com/politics/war-is-hell/#the-normaliz...
> I don't think anyone would say that words literally murder people
There are people who are literally saying that now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is allowed under some interpretation of the first amendment. It is not allowed by the first amendement per se.
>under some interpretation This would imply there are interpretations where it isn't allowed even in the cases of the worst most extreme content. Does any organization/group advocate such an interpretation? As far as I'm aware all groups either support an interpretation that allows the government to censor some speech or supports considering some speech as not counting as speech so it can be censored without censorin…
That would be the interpretation where someone actually reads the text of the Constitution instead of making up exceptions out of whole cloth.
> Does any organization/group advocate such an interpretation?
Yes, obviously. The Libertarian Party is one example:
>> … we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form …[1]
>> We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation, or control of communications media and technology.[1]
Direct threats of harm are still actionable, of course. In that situation you aren't punishing the speaker for what they said but rather defending yourself in response to a reasonable expectation of imminent and irreversible harm. The speech is merely evidence of intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>under some interpretation This would imply there are interpretations where it isn't allowed even in the cases of the worst most extreme content. Does any organization/group advocate such an interpretation? As far as I'm aware all groups either support an interpretation that allows the government to censor some speech or supports considering some speech as not counting as speech so it can be censored without censorin…
There's nothing intrinsically superior to either SCOTUS or any group or organization's interpretation. I'm pretty sure you are able to interpret it as not allowing even in the worst and most extreme cases, you just don't want to. There's no need for an argument from authority.
For anyone else concerned with the recent Big Tech censorship, people are actively building alternative social medial platforms and they are taking off. The RedditAlternatives subreddit [0] provides a fairly good overview of them. Some are rather extreme, others are more reasonable, but there are alternatives, and it's up to us, the reasonable people, to choose where we want to spend our time and money. [0] https://w…
When your content is too cancerous for Reddit ...maybe the issue isn't Reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a hypothesis I came up with awhile ago and it seems to hold pretty true. If we talk about problems as O(n) where n is the causation distance[0] we've solved the vast majority of O(1) and O(0) problems. It makes sense that biologically we would be primed to think in this way because they are decent approximate solutions for small groups. But the world we live in now is much more complex and many events are cou…
I agree, I've been thinking along these lines for a while too; thank you for phrasing it so clearly. My current thinking led me to conclude that we don't have sufficiently good tools[0] for modelling O(n) problems with n > 2. Particularly when (what your simplification doesn't capture) there are feedback loops involved. Take this O(2) problem: x causes more y, y causes more z, z causes less y but much more x. Or in a…
Worse, someone motivated to shape the story one way or the other can create a just-so story where they emphasize only one feedback path or the other, depending on what conclusion they want their audience to draw.
I think the best antidote, although by no means a cure, is to teach clear and specific examples early on so that everyone at least can have a mental category for this class of problem, if not the tools to work through them.
Jevons paradox is a great example of one which is both clear and counterintuitive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of decision by Google does make me rather uncomfortable (the entire situation is uncomfortable... https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentr... ). But it's worth understanding why the situation may be a bit more complicated than is described above. What seems to be happening is not an absolute ban on Fediverse apps , but a ban on specific implementations that make it easy to join specific…
When the cathedral supports real-world violence it's good. When you support real-world violence it's bad. They want you dead, but will settle for your submission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking away a fundamental requirement for life is cruel and unusual, and the punishment does not fit the crime.
I don't know how I feel about cutting off the water service, but "cruel and unusual" seems like a reach. It would be cruel and unusual to deprive a prisoner of water because they have no other means of attaining it when you withhold it. Turning off city water service to a property is different. The property owner has other options they can take to get the water they need to stay alive.
This also strikes me as abuse of power, one must not suffer arbitrary and random punishments. Whats bext, we will start cutting internet access to everyone who swears on the street, disabling electriciry to anyone who protests?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When your content is too cancerous for Reddit ...maybe the issue isn't Reddit.
Well, I can tell you what's bugging me personally about this. There's a growing divide in our society between the "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" camps. And while the "equal opportunity" people mostly have the "just let me grill" attitude, "equal outcomers" are pushing increasingly harder, while doing their best to silence any opposing voices. It's now getting to a point where raising one's kids to be proud o…
People call that kind of twisting of facts and words "cancerous" because it is. You could argue reasonably that attempts to address current inequity are misguided or have gone too far, but not by misrepresenting what people believe.