621–630 of 880 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also use to be legal to deny people based on their skin color. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Is Google refusing to distribute Parler different from the NYT refusing to publish an article I send them?
Here are some of the screenshots [1] from Paler since Wednesday. Please let me know if you think Google is making a mistake or not. [1] https://twitter.com/YourAnonCentral/status/13473740754552299...
I'm basically seeing 4 posts about "kill " and otherwise standard speeches... and then someone later posts screenshots about Jan 20 re-org posted on twitter.. It seems like the basic political discourse you find on twitter, fb and every other social media system, both red and blue posters, at pretty much the same level of intelligence; I'm really not seeing anything there that doesn't equally merit the banning of, we…
Well that is one way to normalize Facist murderous wrecks and their abhorrent ideas.
Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.
I seriously can't identify with this viewpoint. There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there, Google is just choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence. All the pearl-clutching over free speech is totally overblown.
People are calling for AWS to drop Parler, and Parler has already come out and said if this happens, then Parler itself is gone forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you at all worried about the possibility that America could have another civil war because a sufficiently large proportion of Americans are radicalized in uncensored, insufficiently moderated communities? Facebook's own research found “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms: “Ou…
The proposition that free and open discussion creates civil war is frightening. If we are prepared to believe such a thing, then we have no democracy to protect.
If you can go on there and convince a single person that the election was legitimate, that ballot security measures make it impossible for their beliefs to be true, and that Biden was legitimately elected, it's possible for the proposition "free and open discussion can diffuse false ideas" to be valid, but if you can't, then you might want to reevaluate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have lost a sense of perspective. People storming the capital was symbolic act ( with some violence ). Move by Google will likely have repercussions beyond that violence and that storm. Some of us horrified, because that song is always the same.
It was not a symbolic act, it literally happened. People literally died. By people who are literally neo Nazis who literally think I should be murdered, who literally had zip ties and the police are now finding literal pipe bombs. I assure you I am not the one who lost perspective.
I disagree. I may be wrong, but it would appear that you feel personally attacked. I am not sure how people storming capital AND fighting cops AND leaving pipe bombs in said building want to kill you specifically. I do not see the connection. Are you a staffer/lawmaker/cop there or something?
I recognize that tensions are high, but shouting "literally neo Nazis" is not a great argument in US for a variety of reasons ( not completely unlike antisemitism, it lost some of its punch ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A {hosting, domain, ssl} company doesn’t have to accept another company as a customer. What about the hosting company’s freedom of speech rights? If a hosting company doesn’t want to host your site, that’s their decision. If they don’t want to be associated with a site or app or spend their resources, that’s their decision. These aren’t regulated monopolies that have to serve all customers. Now, if you want to claim…
That's interesting. Do you feel the same way about a company refusing to serve Jews or Blacks? Is it their right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely there must be a way to let the courts determine legality in every single controversial case. It’s just an optimization problem. We sent fourteen people to walk around on the moon, twelve of them made it, and all of them made it back.
As long as that way, whatever it is, still involve more than one human, you can't avoid the subjectivity problem. Its not technology problem. Its human problem.
Where it gets weird is that Twitter also has an explicit user contract with the underlying USA social contract/courts as a dependency! If you could physically live in Twitter apartments, and somehow remain safe from war, why not only depend on the Twitter contract and its moderation system? And that's how we get to the future world of Snow Crash.
Would you feel the same if they randomly blocked an app from their Store with no way to appeal, and developers were forced to open a thread on HN in order to get some help?
Would you feel the same if GitHub closed or suspended an account and wouldn't answer to support requests, and users were forced to come in here in order to get some attention?
Or if Youtube locked creators out of their account, because of strikes coming from reports of brigading communities or bogus DMCA?
Or if all those tech giants randomly closed your account without giving you any explanation, locking you out of basically years of data that you did not backup because you never thought it would happen?
Or if Paypal locked your ecommerce account and stopped you from withdrawing your money on it, because of security checks they can't disclose to you, pratically locking you out of your money for months?
Or if Coinbase did the same with your cryptocurrency?
Or if Robinhood did the same with your investing funds?
Or if Amazon locked you out of your account, and stopped you from being able to buying stuff after pushing all the other shops out of business?
Or if they randomly delisted you from their sellers platform, after you invested in order to launch an item?
Since they're private entities, would you feel ok with that? Shouldn't they be allowed?
If your answer is affirmative...I guess I'll just have to accept that in a near future, maybe browsers will ship with a whitelist of the sites we're allowed to browse, since they're developed and published by private entities.
Maybe open source forks without those list will start gaining market share....but just until the private ISPs will decide to implement a whitelist as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all pretty complicated, but one obvious mitigating factor is the ends being pursued by each movement. Rioting aside, BLM is ultimately pushing for justice and equality. There's also a question of blame - many would argue that most of the BLM rioting was provoked by a disproportionate police response. This movement, on the other hand, is quite transparently rooted in white supremacy, and had an explicit goal of t…
You're allowing the BLM supporters to characterise their motivations, and the Trump opponents to characterise the motivations of this protest. That isn't fair. Someone who turns up in a Viking hat, tattoos and a spear isn't looking for a fight. A person looking for a fight wears a mask, armour, carries a gun and probably camouflage.
When people wear imagery and slogans to any demonstration, I afford them the courtesy of understanding that what they're displaying on their bodies is part of the message they want to communicate.
It’s pretty coincidental that all of these tech companies are having epiphanies simultaneously now that Democrats will control the house/senate/and presidency. The interesting question is whether they are doing it out fear of anti trust action from Democrats or weren’t doing it for the last four years out of fear of Republicans.
So no surprise their actions are motivated by greed and future prospects of movement in share price.
In Hinduism, there is a saying - "Yatha Raja, Tatha Praja", meaning "As the King, So the subjects"
That is why the highest echelons of power need to be held by those with Honesty, Integrity & those who are compassionate.