761–770 of 880 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an excuse, not the reason. Blocking parler does jack shit in stopping people’s ability to coordinate violence. Mass texts, email chains, WhatsApp, signal, 4chan boards, etc are all there.
Nah I'm pretty sure that's the reason
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.
So as we soon as we pass law making it a protected class, that argument will be null and void, correct? Great, I cannot wait!
For business discrimination in general, maybe.
For specifically constraining the expressive freedom of media (including social media) businesses, quite plausibly not, because a statute designating a protected class can't negate other people’s First Amendment rights, since the Constitution is superior to statute law.
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:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pearl-clutching Pearl clutching? Odd. I've heard people say that all summer long about those afraid of the "peaceful protests" turned violent riots that burned down cities and devastated business. This violence was encouraged by all types of politicians on the left and all the big media networks as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQzLcO5qhY A small number of people at an almost entirely non-violent rally, a…
Dude, there were pipe bombs and militia boys with guns and handcuffs. The rest of the crowd aside, I’m pretty sure this was supposed to be a show. Not comparable. We were close to a congressional decapitation on live TV.
In 2017 a lone left-wing activist caused more Congressional casualties than thousands of militia boys invading the Capitol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s good that corporations care about (or are afraid of) the government and public opinion. The alternative would be worse.
Not if you care about free speech. Google and Apple control the means by which the vast majority of the world can access software. This is not like Twitter banning from a platform, this is preventing users from accessing a platform in the first place.
If Google and Apple feel powerful enough to uphold the principles of free speech against what seems to be the will of the majority and the incoming administration (for better or worse), what is the source of that power? What else are they confident they can get away with?
This is a long way of saying your frustration is misdirected. If you want stronger free speech, start with the people and the government, not the corporations.
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.
How do you think civil wars start? And how many actual wars have been started by lies? Usually by the instigating government or yellow press, but in this case it's DIY yellow press letting people make up their own lies.
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.
Why do you think there was a seditious conspiracy? Do you really honestly believe that a few hundred people marching onto the capitol have the ability to destabilize the country? Remember, we have layers upon layers of armed forces that would end any such attempt very very easily. I think this incident was more realistically just a bunch of amped up protesters who got caught up in the moment and crossed a physical ba…
> Why do you think there was a seditious conspiracy? Do you really honestly believe that a few hundred people marching onto the capitol have the ability to destabilize the country? Remember, we have layers upon layers of armed forces that would end any such attempt very very easily. You might want to review the facts. The Capitol Police were overwhelmed, our elected representatives, who were in the process of finaliz…
What crazy fantasy world are you living in? That's absolutely not what happened at all! Are you INSANE?
The police were literally taking selfies with protestors, the protestors stayed within the velvet ropes and the TRUMPers stopped anyone who tried to break things.
https://invidious.xyz/watch?v=LPxFGKVl5H (skip to 2:35)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in uncensored, insufficiently moderated communities > if so, why doesn't the prohibition of apps for child pornography Forgive me, I was obviously mistaken to bring up freedom of speech or to claim that you were conflating apps/sites that allow freedom of speech with those that allow child pornography. /s Edit: fixed my egregious typos.
The point is that free speech absolutism requires that child pornography be protected speech.
Of course you are not allowed to possess or distribute explicit photos of actual minors (the same way you are not allowed to possess or distribute human kidneys, or for that matter copies of Windows XP): fortunately, none of these acts are speech, even under extreme straw men versions of free speech absolutism. Easy test: you are still able to convey any of your thoughts/opinions and make absolutely _any_ point to any audience without inconvenience even if you don't resort to these activities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is going to sound incredibly cold and callous, but the comparison needs to be made. One woman was shot. 4 others died for medical reasons. One was a heart attack. One was a police officer. Tragic deaths, to be sure. And the photos really do feel horrific. But do single digit casualties justify all this? Gang violence and crime kills way more people and police officers on a daily basis. Are we really setting the…
While i hear you - i don't see this as an isolated incident. I see this as the inevitable result of radicalization that this President has pushed for four years. Shockingly when you flat out say that "They're only sending there criminals" (with regards to Mexico) it has affects on how some people view and thus tread Mexicans and/or brown skinned peoples. Repeatedly, examples similar to this have been expected by the…