451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. If they actually cared about censorship, they would promote Mastodon and host their own instance. But Parler is about maintaining the echo chamber, not free speech.
The biggest Mastodon federation instance is now Gab (far-right social media platform).
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
That’s just it, though: we assume we’re wrong. We audit ourselves. Watch any of the press conferences where the Georgia election officials detailed the extra work they did.
It is that we assume we are wrong for the important things, and double check, triple check, that separates our viewpoints from those being deplatformed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're trying to skate over the difference between good-faith political debate and bad-faith encouragement of violence and sedition. Diverse dissenting views are fine. Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. If the far-right can't operate without plotting armed violence - and there's plenty of evidence it can't - then it puts itself outside the reach of any free speech arguments. Not j…
> Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. Not condoning any sort of violence or the riots from Wednesday but I think it is worth observing that the problem isn't that there are people who are trying to "overturn a legitimate election result". The problem is that there are people who believe that the election results were not legitimate. They are acting on that premise and so in their m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. Well these last two seem pretty par for the course for illegitimate claims been promoted as legitimate. At a certain point the line of absurdity has been crossed at it is not the duty of society to constantly debunk illegitimate claims. > The other side keeps deplatforming them In this particular case, Parler has been host to a num…
Yes, that is what reddit, twitter and Hacker News reinforce constantly. It's either because it's true, or because the other side has been repeatedly discouraged from adding their two cents in those communities. I've been seeing the world through this lens for so long that I can't tell. I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It seems much more likely that I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were never part of public debate. They were just talking amongst themselves, showing each other what they wanted to hear, and validating their own beliefs in a downwards spiral towards eventual extremism. This is enabled by the internet more than any specific social network. It's like sending someone to prison and expecting them to turn into a law abiding citizen: hard when all your peers are also criminals. Now…
>They were never part of public debate. They were just talking amongst themselves, showing each other what they wanted to hear, and validating their own beliefs in a downwards spiral towards eventual extremism. Isn't the exact opposite true as well then? If one side is siloed, by definition the other side must be in an opposite silo. You've taken it upon yourself to define that your side is in the "public debate" and…
You're right. And no offense specifically to anyone here, but he's trying to make his point somewhere with a specifically curated silo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re being de-platformed for the same reason the Marriott kicks a homeless person out of the lobby or Amtrak kicks a loud person out of the quiet car: most of the platform’s users don’t want them there.
This is more akin to Amtrak kicking out half the people on the train who already purchased tickets.
Imagine owning a phone that can only get content approved by Apple and can cancel you for any arbitrary reason. Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations, its ridiculous and yet the fanboys will defend their shitty practices no matter what
You're trying to skate over the difference between good-faith political debate and bad-faith encouragement of violence and sedition. Diverse dissenting views are fine. Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. If the far-right can't operate without plotting armed violence - and there's plenty of evidence it can't - then it puts itself outside the reach of any free speech arguments. Not j…
It displays differently on iOS and Android now.
Apple is indeed pushing a specific political agenda.
Regardless of how you feel about gun rights, politically-motivated altering of text is a terrible thing. Imagine if you couldn't type a certain text string on iOS? Altering emoji to be one thing instead of another isn't much different.
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
> Their legal cases are rejected. Not-an-American here. When their cases seek to disenfranchise large swathes of voters based on zero evidence, what’s the alternative?
First, the position of the plaintiffs of those cases is that the actions of the “other half” have effectively disenfranchised them. If disenfranchisement is the issue at hand, it follows that one should investigate when someone claims to have been disenfranchised.
Second, every case that I’ve followed up on has been denied on the grounds of standing. My understanding is that this means that either the court believes that there was no harm or that the court believes that there is no reasonable way the outcome of the case could provide relief for harm that may have taken place. Either way, to my knowledge, none of the court cases have actually been heard. No evidence has been presented and no arguments have been made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yah. IMO-- only the most directly dangerous stuff -- incitements to violence-- should be removed. If you chase them out of Twitter, they'll make an even worse echo-chamber. > Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. > If you deny them the usual channels, is it surprising that they take the other route? On the other hand, if what they're asserting is crazy and unsupported by…
> On the other hand, if what they're asserting is crazy and unsupported by fact, what's the alternative? How is this any different from the entirety of human history? America has gotten along quite fine without a central Ministry of Information directing what people should and should not believe is true. It is especially galling to think that some content moderators in the very narrow slice of society in Bay Area tec…
And there is no ministry of information. The 1st amendment protects us from governmental interference, not a private party discriminating based on content.
Deplatforming is happening because of cultural pressure and values, people still have the ability to create organizations with different values. The history of 1st amendment lawsuits is filled with examples of speech that was really offensive at the time, lawsuits were won because the government tried to restrict it.
Diversity in beliefs is valuable, but private parties should be able to have standards. I find an argument that companies should be forced allow speech that violates their standards because it is political dangerous.
People don’t seem to understand, censorship is a double edged sword. You never know who will be in charge years from now and will abuse those very same good intentioned laws & we end up a police state.