631–640 of 1001 posts
IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. The possibility that we might slide backwards from traditionally liberal ideas spawned from the enlightenment is utterly terrifying. And we are rapidly heading in that direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's highly unlikely that there were any members of Antifa among the rioters, and there is also no evidence of same.
This has been an embarrassing incident to those in power because it made them look weak. But calling a populist movement with millions of supporters, terrorists is very short sighted. It will only accelerate the fire. The left soon will control all three branches of government, after an election that many people question, has been simultaneously advocating for censorship of its political adversaries, more draconian c…
> The left soon will control all three branches of government ...the supreme court is majority conservative and has 3 trump appointees. Senate and congress are together one branch (the legislative branch).
Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms? As far as I can tell, there are two general viewpoints: a) Censorship is bad, free speech is good. You should counter bad arguments with better arguments. b) There are types of speech, which are proven to lead to violence in the long-run. Also, some things can be proven as untrue. Lies are bad. I have…
I also believe that same meaning of "free speech", that binding of the government, can't also be applied to private citizens and entities. That's a paradox; you inhibit their free speech by trying to force them to be a party to others speech.
I believe in very, very narrow exceptions to the above in the vein of what we currently have.
I also believe private citizens and entities being able to decide collectively on what is and isn't acceptable and not giving quarter to what they deem as bad actors is.. Both good and a type of free speech. It's not perfect, and we don't always agree with it, but it seems that over time we've been living in more and more liberal, socially, times while government has become EVEN MORE tied on the subject of free speech(Larry Flint? etc).
I believe it's also okay, even though I don't necessarily agree, to think we should do nothing within the public to restrict or discount others speech and opinions. But then, I'm also betting on society working that out on its own based on the above :)
I expect the platform to wither, alternatives to flourish and both Zuckerberg and Dorsey to require security wherever they roam from now on.
If I was staff at Twitter today, I would resign.
> The type of person that stormed the capitol will perceive this as an escalation. Who cares? The type of person that stormed the Capitol has shown they are impervious to reality. Time to stop the appeasement.
Rhetoric like this is why they stormed the capitol.
They let him concede, waited a day, and then nuked him. It's too little too late, but I'll take it.
First president in history to be banned from twitter
I came on here just to check what the “young intellectual tech” community thinks— I consider myself part of it. I’m a 20-something female who has been heavily involved in tech for my short career.
Heads up: This isn’t animal farm, this is 1984!
I never post on here and stopped reading awhile ago due to the one-minded propaganda I consistently find on the site these days (i was a lurker a longtime before i made this account) but I feel compelled to share my opinion because these times matter, and us young (and old) folks matter.
Amen and a-women? Welcome to the best addition to New Speak. Please look that up if you don’t know what it is. Have you zoomed out on how Big (and Little) Techs subtle involvement here? And how they may be affecting how you’re thinking? I can personally say after having deleted social media for a year and combing through different sources (time consuming), I feel very differently now than I did four years, or eight years ago.
“I don’t like Trump” and “not being a Trump supporter,” the badges of honor on Hacker News. But here’s my practical advice: be very careful who you’re choosing. Everything in life is a trade off— even who’s in the White House, who’s in office, who you’re casting your votes for.
Another piece of advice: for some laughs, and practical news these days, check out AwakenwithJP and Brett Pella :-) hope your hackers but your thinking caps on and leave confirmation bias in 2020.
> The type of person that stormed the capitol will perceive this as an escalation. Who cares? The type of person that stormed the Capitol has shown they are impervious to reality. Time to stop the appeasement.
Rhetoric like this is why they stormed the capitol.
Beyond things that are broadly considered reprehensible (e.g. videos of rape), I'm not convinced that moderation/deplatforming is healthy for society. I definitely get the "my company - my rules" POV. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private spaces. Then again, I'm not convinced that moderators ought to have the power to control what sorts of ideas are interrogated publicly (e.g. in the company of strangers). It'…
Imagine if you're on Twitter and you can follow a person on Parler. Parler has a right to moderate their own private space however they want. Twitter has a right to moderate their space however they want. But - Twitter can't influence how others moderate their spaces.
So let's say that you are on Twitter and follow Trump on Twitter. Twitter decides to ban Trump. Trump should be able to migrate his account (with the username and profile history) to Parler and you, using Twitter would still magically follow him as before and would be able to read what he posts in your Twitter feed. Twitter would still be able to not show his tweets in their search, or their trending topics or any proprietary feature of the service, but if someone follows him explicitly, they'd still see his tweets in their timeline.