371–380 of 880 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not censorship, it's free market. These are private companies.
Censorship - noun the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. It is censorship. But not all censorship is bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost like there was some sort of catalyst event that occurred very recently that would provoke such a response. /s
I'm curious why so many Democrats were allowed to encourage the BLM riots (more than 25 dead, $2 billion in property damage) without so much as a peep from Google, Twitter, Facebook or any other tech giant. Kamala Harris said "they should not stop" and helped with a bail fund for the people who were involved with them. I think protest is a fundamental requirement of democracy, and as Chris Cuomo himself reminded us:…
Bad police were maiming innocent civilians with no provocation: https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266752393556918273
The protests were to hold those bad police accountable.
Do not compare people asking for the rule of law to be applied fairly and justly, to a President directing his rally to violently attack Congress and overthrow a democratic election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a cursory glance on Twitter finds the same kind of unmoderated content but towards conservatives. Two wrongs don't make a right. But let's not act like these platforms are bastions of fair moderation. They are leftist corporatists, tried and true. https://twitter.com/CustomsFatman/status/1163877317208264705... https://twitter.com/kxxtcxcxxnx/status/1322190172872712192?s... https://twitter.com/AlmightyBoob/status…
Your first tweet is actually from a trump supporter, his timeline is filled with #stopthesteal and other non sense. Weird choice. https://twitter.com/CustomsFatman
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the BLM riots promote sedition? That's probably why. Also worth noting that there was no property damage or injuries in more than 97 to 98% of protests[1] [1]: https://today.uconn.edu/2020/10/study-2020-protests-shows-di...
Hahah, "sedition." A big made-for-TV LARP that lasted a matter of hours where almost nobody was armed and nothing was at stake -- hardly any desks were even overturned. There wasn't even a millisecond where it looked like Wednesday's events would affect how power is wielded or who wields it in the U.S.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If wal-mart stops selling a brand of ice cream, is that censorship? Is it censorship that wal-mart doesn't sell playboy in their store? If not, then why is the removal of an app from the app store censorship? The world wide web still exists. Parler is still on the internet. Seems like there should be some acknowledgement that there's a difference between refusing to actively participate in distributing content and ce…
I think a better analogy is saying, oh, you've banned newspapers, but who cares, you can still talk to people in person. Which is to say, it's true, & that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean that the censorship itself isn't bad. The most effective, most powerful communication medium that exists right now is native apps for social networks on smartphones. If 100% of that medium is controlled and censored by two com…
That's practically illegal now, too. What a time to be alive...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purge has been happening for years. I hate how people on HN is praising this. There are literally few alternatives for the average person apart from Google and eyeProducts. I have a PinePhone, but what percentage of America can truly put in the effort to use one? If you cannot install an run your own software on a device, you do not own the device. You cannot praise the removal of Gab or Parlor now and complain l…
If you must have a native mobile app, you can download it from alternative stores. Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Businesses don’t have any right to force other businesses to carry their products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Chaz?
Wrong capitol hill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not censorship, it's free market. These are private companies.
You realise that it’s possible for entities outside of the government to censor things, right? That word isn’t only applicable to state actions, and nor should it be.
In this case, if a significant number of people are disenfranchised by this, it will naturally create the market pressure for a solution that they can use. It will spur adoption of tools like F-droid and open devices etc. It'll force these people to embrace open web technologies instead of proprietary ecosystems. Which are all very positive and healthy things.
It may be very inefficient, but to some extent its a healthy process that ultimately arbitrates where acceptable standards of speech sit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Newspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why shouldn't social media companies have the same liberties?
There was no "network effect" deterring me from dropping the NYT. These social media platforms, and the internet in general-- which are entirely "private"-- are the new public square. Twitter, Facebook, et al just excluded leading conservative voices from the public square.
They are a private company that needs to do business to stay alive. Other companies can choose not to do business with them based on the content that's on their site. If they fail to satisfy their customers, they die.
They cannot satisfy the whims of those who pay nothing and demand a megaphone. They owe you, and your beliefs, nothing.