I thinks the main problem isn't the platform itself, but the form itself. Twitter is toxic, Parler as well, but perhaps to other people. What's the point?
Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
691–700 of 889 posts
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#692I'm getting a lot of value out of Mastodon. I found a medium sized instance who's moderator I trust, and whose culture matches matches what I want out of a social media website. Not having posts algorithmically shoved into your face helps a lot, because it is clear where posts on you home timeline are coming from and thus easier to customise your experience by blocking people. The main problem with mastodon is that i…
Your diverse group isn't very diverse.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#693In mid October I deleted almost all my tweets and likes (but Twitter being so shit they are still showing my likes except it’s not liked anymore lol) and have not been tweeting anything anymore. I found Twitter too toxic, it made me angry with people for no reason, so I deleted all my tweets and the app. No more notifications, no more “just checking Twitter quickly”. I now go to Twitter like once a day just to have a…
You are not alone in this. There are actually tens of alternative social media sites started by people who are fed up with the status quo.
For starters, here's a good maintained list: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/hi97fz/...
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#694Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is a little bit less likely that you dislike heartland America when you spent a year working with Fred the Farmboy before you headed to Princeton. I find it interesting you choose this as an example, and not rather say that "Fred the Farmboy" might actually see those "librul coastal elites" or "ivory tower intellectuals" as people like himself. The latter are terms I've actually seen used. But on the topic of a…
> I find it interesting you choose this as an example, and not rather say that "Fred the Farmboy" might actually see those "librul coastal elites" or "ivory tower intellectuals" as people like himself. I wonder, if he had instead chosen your example, would you no longer have found it interesting, but other people would then have found his new comment interesting (who did not find the one he made here interesting). Ab…
My apologies; I was being sarcastic, but my writing ability does not match my intent, which in any case was not in good faith.
My point is that many on the right claim there is no attempt at empathy from the left, meanwhile there are many on the right (not always the same people, I acknowledge) who will say "fuck your feelings" and use (from their POV) epithets against leftists instead of addressing grievances or even ideologies.
I myself have what I consider enough perspective on the heartland; my parents grew up in Iowa, and both sets of my grandparents worked in the agricultural fields. This is not to claim I have first hand knowledge, but I am white and I recognize the many aspects of privilege I am afforded. I feel I have enough of that perspective.
Meanwhile, it seems glaringly obvious that many on the right are not even making attempts at understanding why BLM exists, and can't seem to comprehend systemic racism, because they've never been a victim of it. FFS, when Bloomberg admitted to stop and and frisk, that I felt should have been a turning point. For decades people of color have been telling us about this, but they were commonly dismissed by white americans as imagining it.
To elaborate on why I am not willing to empathize further than I have, I have no wish to empathize with bigotry. One set of my grandparents were also homophobes, which was laid bare in their will when their estate left out my homosexual brother completely. I hope I don't have to cite Popper's paradox of tolerance.
"Fred the farmboy" wants understanding and compassion? I'm all for that, I even want to put policy in place to help! But I have zero tolerance for intolerance, and will call it as I see it.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#695I'm getting a lot of value out of Mastodon. I found a medium sized instance who's moderator I trust, and whose culture matches matches what I want out of a social media website. Not having posts algorithmically shoved into your face helps a lot, because it is clear where posts on you home timeline are coming from and thus easier to customise your experience by blocking people. The main problem with mastodon is that i…
Your diverse group isn't very diverse.
Why? Because it's missing hate groups?
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you walked up to me today and gave me the latest spiel about how Kamala Harris was born in Kenya to a two-headed alligator man, I'm going to walk away. Except most of the so called "conspiracy theorists" don't talk about that stuff at all. They normally talk about how "this information Y is being supressed from the public because this will undermind the governments policy on X". People always bring up the crazy…
I'm sure this is how they perceive themselves and I'm sure they spend at least a few hours to talk about this stuff. But in my experience, the SNR is low. It's hard to find the new MKULTRA hidden in the pizzagate, qanon, and birtherism. And ultimately, that's it. But be my guest: go be informed about subtle government interference by the guys who are convinced that Democrats are injecting old people with SARS-CoV-2 s…
I didn't know that strawmanning is the way to the truth /sarcasm.
I put conspircy theorists in quotes because the news organisations label people as such when they look away from an official narrative. This is known as dissent. If you are an American your country is founded on dissent.
That why I gave you the the Rothbard quote (not a conspiracy theorist btw but an Anarcho Capitalist) because it specifically talks about how dissenters are dismissed. You are doing exactly that. You should be very worried when large media organisations and news are talking about "fact checking" and "stopping mis-information". What they are really saying is that they wish to silence dissenters.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think we need to manage speech or control discourse whatsoever. If you think that's the idea here, you're not thinking deep enough about the nature of the systems that are problematic right now. We've designed communication systems that are optimized for instant gratification, engagement, getting the dopamine hit of seeing things you agree with or angry at, and rapidly moving to the next. That's not speech,…
Anyone who has studied the history of philosophy would know that the arguments you are making are classics among defenders of censorship: limiting speech for the "sake of speech" (over attention-seeking), "incentivize the context", "reinforce our humanity." None of these exempt you from managing speech, you're just trying to launder your values to a higher level - like what "good speech" is or whether a given speech-…
The key difference here is that the speech is already highly managed and influenced to a degree never before seen in history. To think otherwise would be foolish.
Twitter isn't some natural state of the world that is pristine and unassailable; Facebook isn't the square in the park where people can speak their voice, and other choose to listen, participate, or walk along. Neither are anything like a book or newspaper.
If you're saying we shouldn't optimize or manage or turn the dials of these systems, then that's accepting that the current management and optimization and dials are somehow, inexplicably, acceptable or natural.
Someone has designed these systems and is influencing speech with their decisions. I don't have any power over them, but someone does, and the dials and designs of the system and the type of speech and communication they reinforce or encourage will change over time.
What gives them, the designers of the systems, any more right to manage their own system and the speech on it by their design choices? Are we to simply accept the corporations' design of their systems without critique or argument?
Not taking any action is to accept the current action, which still influences society. Not managing systems is to accept the current state of those systems, which still manages speech.
I do not see any difference whatsoever in those paths, so I will argue for trying to improve the systems.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#698Parler will fail. Twitter has the respectable center ground. If Hard Righters (Being polite there) cant have manners and stop saying some of the things they are saying then that has consequences for their accounts on a private business site.
Parler will fail because teh very people who will flock to parler wont stay there as there is no non "hard righters" to antagonize.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's not based on lies or misrepresentation. In each case the inciting incidents actually happened and in many we have footage. To play devil's advocate a little: BLM's ideology (the core activists, not the average supporter) is based on a specific view of anti-racism — critical race theory. CRT is not the only way to think about race, and many would argue it's a bad way to think about it: it's illiberal, divisive,…
> could be argued that the CRT is a huge misrepresentation All I've heard of CRT has been misrepresentation by its opponents. I'm not sure what actual proponents say about it. The problem goes further than the police into the prosecutors, too. Hence the refusal to prosecute in cases of murder by police of black people. > make every one of them take the knee This is not what is being asked for and itself is a common m…
> The problem goes further than the police into the prosecutors
Yes.
> Hence the refusal to prosecute in cases of murder by police of black people.
No. They refuse to prosecute cases of murder by police regardless of race. The race of the person killed is largely irrelevant, which is the point I was making in the previous comment. Black officers aren't prosecuted, white officers aren't prosecuted. They aren't prosecuted when they kill white people or people of color. The problem is that police (and the prosecutors) aren't accountable, and they know it.
You make it about race rather than accountability and the problem will not be fixed.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to agree that big tech really messed this one up. Their attempt at regulating speech on their platforms (entirely their own right to do however they want) has resulted in both sides being pissed . I had commented on this a while ago that it was like War Games - the only way to win this game was not to play at all. The second they started being the arbitrator of speech they were guaranteed to piss people off. T…
Except one side is pissed at them not doing it enough while the other is pissed at being on the receiving side of the censorship. There is a party of authoritarianism at the moment.
Don't forget "fact checks are a form of censorship".
How did we, as a species, drop so low that to say that the thing a person says is disputed gets blown up into a huge issue.
I have no problem with people of ANY political persuasion being fact checked - is it perfect? No. But is it better than nothing? On balance, it appears so.