321–327 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. No - it’s literally the definition of the word censorship: “suppression or prohibition of speech”. It really sounds like you’re trying hard to redefine the word to mean what you want to say, but maybe you should just pick a different word?
Where do you draw the line between censorship (as you define it) and editorial policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP is under the (incorrect) impression that censorship is only possible if enacted by a government entity. That’s blatantly and provably false, but nevertheless comes up in many discussions of censorship.
Yeah, it's three different things. The First Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the government. Free speech is the principle that suppressing allegedly false information is more dangerous than not suppressing it because if the information is actually false you can refute it but if the information is actually true then it allows powerful actors to suppress atrocities and lie with impunity. Censorship is the s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My somewhat heterodox political views and the criticisms they inform would be tangential at best. I don't agree that I'm smoothing over anything here. That said, I don't think it would be any less rational for someone to support Trump than support Biden. Assuming that all Trump supporters are somehow more irrational than others, that we could filter posts for rationality based upon proximity to Trump is troublesome.…
supporting trump is only less rational if one values democracy. I know that you are never ever supposed to compare someone with nazis, and if you do, you automatically lose. But isn't there a point where someone can act like a nazi to the degree that it becomes dishonest to not call them a nazi? When trump repeatedly lies about the election being stolen, is it really that far-fetched to make that comparison? I can fu…
From that point, you can't argue using evidence. Widespread delusions are more powerful... 'Truth' or at least the will to perceive and the perception of it has become highly partisan.
In regards to censorious intolerance, both sides are not the same. We are supposed to value democracy, (tyranny of the masses?) yet we can't trust individuals to consume or digest information without hand-holding from partisan fact checkers. If we are concerned about democracy, this should be problematic. These are themes of technocracy, not democracy.
It isn't important to me to establish equivalence. That's not what I am working towards here. I'm attempting illustrate what I see as mass hysteria, widely held delusions. The Hitler comparisons, a common form of hyperbole are part of that.
This targeting of the infrastructure layer is leaving a really bad taste in mouth. I agree with the EFFs conclusion for most part here. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-priva... Like sure this DDOS provider may not have enough of a presence in belize anymore to hold those IPs, but it's an IP block, probably more than just Parler is using them. Also tons of companies open shell offices for domain…
The complained raised to LACNIC was a real one and once they investigated, it was no longer in relation to the content, but to their policies.
You may be in disagreement with that policy, but I personally believe it does make sense. There's a big shortage of IPV4, so it does makes sense that if you find out that they aren't used in your region, that you takes them out. Imagine how you would feel to be in the LACNIC region struggling to get a few IP to find out that Russian company got thousands of them from your region...
The strange thing though, is that they don't mentions anything about the actual infrastructure. Do they have the IP but used them in others regions? Or the mere fact that they weren't used locally was the issue? If I was LACNIC, I would have just required them to use local infrastructure, which I'm sure DDOS-Guard can do.
There might be a selective enforcement issue here? If it turns out that lots of the IP address space is doled out based on semi-fraudulent claims like this (assuming that Guilmette's claim is correct that DDos-Guard doesn't really have a physical Latin American presence), but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selectiv…
I guess they just can't police 100% of their space, it just too big. Thus yeah it does make sense to only act once you get complains.
The fact that this time it was content-motivated change nothing to how it's enforced.
> In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people.
What? How? It more like the police answering to complains, which happens to be much more frequent against black people because of racism. Which definitely is the case right now. The solution would be to not answer to complains? Not really...
There was a complains raised, it was investigated, and they were found to be infringing on the policy. There was no selective enforcement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tolerance isn't a binary state, but a sliding scale.
Which is exactly what makes the "Paradox of Tolerance" hypocritical - you are more or less arbitrarily deciding who you can be intolerant towards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the issue with IP addressed is used to de-platform them. Lots of rules are broken all the time and no one cares. Suddenly when people want to get rid of someone, rules are selectively enforced.
Except that's not the case here. It's not a "Parler" thing. It's a DDos-Guard. Parler happened to use one of the IPs ALLOCATED for them by DDos-Guard. Also, according to the article, DDos-Guard already gave them another IP. So no, it's not a Parler thing.
The message is clear: help them and we're coming for you. The result: they have a lot of trouble getting online.
> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups.