121–130 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private entities can and do engage in censorship.
The best analogy to help low-information people understand this is to just remind them that AT&T owns the hardware and can shut down people too. Do we want powerful companies to be allowed to censor Americans at their whim is the question. I say no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>BigTech has just now gone nuclear in their censorship efforts Who's being censored? Twitter, Facebook etc. are private platforms and they've been banning users who break their TOS throughout their histories.
I started using the term "nuclear" once Amazon Cloud Services decided to terminate the Parler web server hosting. If internet service providers can shut down speech they disagree with, by going after the servers, then we're no longer living in a democracy.
You present this as if Parler is being shut down because people there have the wrong opinion on tax rates.
People on Parler are planning violent fascist overthrow of government, which is illegal. Why would Amazon be obligated to host sites that cater to terrorists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> open source software at this point is just a pawn for being misused by extremists. This comment makes me question if you know what open source software is.
1. get banned from platform. 2. move to another platform. 3. spew shit. 4. go to step 1. If the above happens for a certain amount of time, think about what the extremists are going to use when they finally realise they need to "build their own" stuff? The next one after Mastodon will probably be Matrix and by then it's already too late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private entities can and do engage in censorship.
The best analogy to help low-information people understand this is to just remind them that AT&T owns the hardware and can shut down people too. Do we want powerful companies to be allowed to censor Americans at their whim is the question. I say no.
The 1st amendment ensures that the government may not stop you from saying what you want.
This is a separate issue from private companies removing/banning you. Each company has their own right and freedom to be as dickish as they want with regard to deleting your account etc - but that is not related to the 1st.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On Pop!_OS, apt show python3-pip shows six dependencies, while apt show npm shows: nodejs (>= 6.11~), ca-certificates, node-abbrev (>= 1.1.1~), node-ajv, node-ansi, node-ansi-regex (>= 3.0~), node-ansi-styles, node-ansistyles, node-aproba, node-archy (>= 1.0~), node-are-we-there-yet, node-asap, node-asn1, node-assert-plus, node-asynckit, node-aws4, node-aws-sign2, node-balanced-match, node-bcrypt-pbkdf, node-bl, node…
What does that prove? The six dependencies are probably an order of magnitude larger than the NPM ones. If anything, lots of small dependencies is more Unix-y than one big dependency.
For something where you need security (i.e. a decentralized chat platform), this could be problematic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you broke the TOS of your water company, would it be acceptable for them to cut the water connection to your house? I mean if you don't like it, you could always just go pick up your own water...or install underground pipes to a local water source.
Having your message broadcasted through Twitter is not a human right or essential to your survival. Also, what kind of TOS would a water company have that you can break? This example is ridiculous.
...now you know how it feels for anyone on the opposite side of your argument.
Downside: It doesn't support Tor and they don't seem to have any plan for that. So it's trusted-friends-only, IPs are always visible. Which is pointless for me, as a person trying to build healthy online friendships from behind Tor.
Upside: I was afraid it's a reaction to Parler being deplatformed. And then I thought maybe it was a side-project of Urbit. But looking at the Values page: "No nazis, no TERFs, no alt-right—or anyone friendly with them"
So that's cool.
For clarification: The 1st amendment ensures that the government may not stop you from saying what you want. This is a separate issue from private companies removing/banning you. Each company has their own right and freedom to be as dickish as they want with regard to deleting your account etc - but that is not related to the 1st.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>BigTech has just now gone nuclear in their censorship efforts Who's being censored? Twitter, Facebook etc. are private platforms and they've been banning users who break their TOS throughout their histories.
I started using the term "nuclear" once Amazon Cloud Services decided to terminate the Parler web server hosting. If internet service providers can shut down speech they disagree with, by going after the servers, then we're no longer living in a democracy.