291–300 of 550 posts
How is this not foreign political interference? The UK media has been preaching to us about dangers of Russian election interference for years at this point, but simultaneously they seem completely unconcerned that a handful of wealthy Americans how the power to censor popular media outlets, entire political movements and political activists at a whim. The SWP is massive. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they had…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Citizens will require a personal licence to access the internet, and anonymous use will be illegal. Sadly, given the actions of Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and Google, that is a preferred option to the current state today. Ironically we will have more freedom in that state.
Are you sure that you have an accurate assessment of how bad things are currently vs how bad they would become in a world where access to the Internet was strictly controlled by governments and anonymous/pseudonymous communications were forbidden? Don't you think that the risks in the second scenario are in a different category to the risks in the first one? While being sent to Facebook Jail could limit your social l…
We have a system of justice, you get to defend youself, judged by your peers and posting general BS about politics is not a crime.
Youtube, on the other hand, will ban your channel without any recourse, so if you are earning a living from it, you kids might be on the street because something in a mysteruous machine learning algorithm got triggered.
> ... have been removed from Facebook with no explanation given At the very least, this should be unacceptable. You shouldn't get banned for something if you aren't told what you did. If it was for use of the word revolutionary, it should say so. Or if they called for some leader's heads, it should say so. Then they could avoid doing the same in the future and we could all agree with or criticize the rationale. As it…
We should create a brightline, even if approximate and requiring later adjustment, to determine which companies are too big and must be governed by a different set of rules. Normally we would consider it unremarkable if a restaurant quits a customer, or if a law firm refused a client altogether. On the other hand we consider it disaster if Amazon quits you as a vendor, or if your only local hospital refuses you. Perh…
It's a positive thing for these ejections to be across the political spectrum, because it makes the demand for distributed moderation come from across the political spectrum. I hope that demand congeals on support for an open blogging protocol, such that people can very easily post once and direct it to multiple platforms or any listener. If this becomes popular enough, and posts aren't owned by a particular platform…
Or.... The media companies just like to have the middle-of-the-road, dont-rock-the-boat-too-much parties who will kowtow to them and give the masses the ILUSION of political choice.
How is this not foreign political interference? The UK media has been preaching to us about dangers of Russian election interference for years at this point, but simultaneously they seem completely unconcerned that a handful of wealthy Americans how the power to censor popular media outlets, entire political movements and political activists at a whim. The SWP is massive. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they had…
Facebook is a private company and can do whatever they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "this gets more favourable media attention." definitely implies they're referring to the flurry of media attention towards alt-right removals we've been seeing And my point is it's not really a "significant misapprehension" at all, at least not significant to their point. They could be a party of one guy in his underwear and the point would still stand
Per the sibling comment to yours, no, they aren't referring to that. "The point" is attacking a strawman. As a general takeaway, "It actually feels absurd to type that sentence out..." can be a useful warning sign that you're projecting an absurd interpretation onto a reasonable statement instead of applying the Principle of Charity.
-
The deplatforming thing that ramped up in 2018 has overwhelmingly been about things like white-supremacy and neo-nazis... so it hit the alt-right very hard.
This is like conservative politicians complaining their followers are being deplatformed when Twitter decides to take a harder stance against white supremacy in the wake of an attack on our capitol which featured the alt-right/ neo-Confederates/ neo-Nazis... you're not confirming what you think you're confirming.
The conservatives is not being targeted per se, but it just so happens a lot of neo-nazis are conservatives. Take it as you will.
-
They're also ignoring the fact the "deplatforming thing" has recently kicked into high gear because of a certain set of events
This would be like someone from the Branch Davidians saying "We've always felt persecuted" in March 1993.. there were, but also a little thing happened with 4 ATF agents the month before!
That's the point being brought up, those events are very relevant if you're talking about deplatforming today. You don't brush such a major occurrence under the rug if you're arguing in good faith.
-
Even them saying it ramped up in "around 2018" is disingenuous. It ramped up with Trump and his actions.
And there was as a lot of gnashing of teeth over if that was right, if Trump was actually building a hateful support base or if this was just political lynching...
And then the Capitol breach occurred and removed all doubt and now we see it accelerating.
-
Also you read the sibling comment, you should have realized it makes the last part of your comment complete non-sequitur... sometimes it's a useful sign the argument being made just lacking self-awareness
How is this not foreign political interference? The UK media has been preaching to us about dangers of Russian election interference for years at this point, but simultaneously they seem completely unconcerned that a handful of wealthy Americans how the power to censor popular media outlets, entire political movements and political activists at a whim. The SWP is massive. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they had…
Facebook is a private company and can do whatever they want.
The idea is to provide a set of plug and play tools that auto configures and secures your servers and services and using a separate device to manage authorized connections.
Each household / user will have its own forums, streaming and other services that FAMG usually provides.
It's a positive thing for these ejections to be across the political spectrum, because it makes the demand for distributed moderation come from across the political spectrum. I hope that demand congeals on support for an open blogging protocol, such that people can very easily post once and direct it to multiple platforms or any listener. If this becomes popular enough, and posts aren't owned by a particular platform…
> It's a positive thing for these ejections to be across the political spectrum, because it makes the demand for distributed moderation come from across the political spectrum. It's a positive thing for these ejections to be across the political spectrum, because it de-politicizes censorship, and folks on one side of the spectrum cheering for the other side begin to realize that censorship is always a scope creep iss…
How is this not foreign political interference? The UK media has been preaching to us about dangers of Russian election interference for years at this point, but simultaneously they seem completely unconcerned that a handful of wealthy Americans how the power to censor popular media outlets, entire political movements and political activists at a whim. The SWP is massive. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they had…
Facebook is a private company and can do whatever they want.