Give me Parler's software and I will host it in Russia... that's where USA's free speech usually come from anyways (free as in somewhat controversial, popular and still allowed). I think I say a lot of somewhat controversial things, but they let it fly because I am not popular.
> Give me Parler's software and I will host it in Russia... that's where USA's free speech usually come from anyways (free as in somewhat controversial, popular and still allowed). Doubt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny
Russia has no problem with political strife in USA, only with people opposed to the Russian government.
How do you think coups work? Look into the history of Greek city states. A mob of civilians storming the chambers of government is quite literally how tyrants have installed themselves. Some of those tyrants had to try multiple times, before the last attempt succeeded. They generally follow up by killing their political rivals, because people who come to power through violence rarely turn around and adopt a policy of…
There was no real threat to democracy here. It's not like the police and military are going to take commands from some nutjob cosplayer just because they're wielding Nancy Pelosi's lectern.
Not the mob directly, but a wicked power struggle could have ensued if they'd, say, succeeded in hanging Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi. For instance, martial law could have been declared, or an alt-right paramilitary could have formed, or the Federal government could have reacted so strongly that states defy orders and rulings. Probably the most realistic worry would be that political violence and domestic terrorism become normalized.
It really did make the US government seem far more fragile than I even expected.
> We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. this, from their "technical difficulties" notice, should have been enough for him to be fired on its own. requiring some users to provide government identification, building such weak security that anyone can read and archive private messages, and not stripping out damaging meta-data from media posts are three ways to not provide…
FWIW, I recently found out that AirBnB now requires government id to be shared as verification after not having logged into AirBnB since 2014.
I tried to delete my account but the option is not available or may be hidden behind the forced verification requirement.
Parler was never a "free speech" platform. This was always a lie, they heavily moderated their content. I've always felt like Parler was just a lazy attempt to make some cash by pulling some users away from Twitter claiming they could do what they want, it was never more or less than that. I'm interested in knowing how you think a real "free speech" platform can actually work, however. We have message boards that do…
Well a real free speech platform should apply strict automatic moderating rules to political threads and basically tease out the best arguments from all sides,
Maybe we should move away from free speech into pro speech. Sites that encourage a healthy discussion is what we really want. Anything that discourages that should be reduced in importance anything that encourages that promoted.
Patterns of negative conversation defined by fewer quality reply posts get negative points and vice versa for positive or patterns to be encouraged.
As things evolve and how people respond changes these patterns can change.
> We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. this, from their "technical difficulties" notice, should have been enough for him to be fired on its own. requiring some users to provide government identification, building such weak security that anyone can read and archive private messages, and not stripping out damaging meta-data from media posts are three ways to not provide…
As someone who does deeply believe in and care about free speech (from all parties), I could not be in deeper agreement with you. (for non-native English speakers: I fully agree). Parler should not have been de-platformed. That was a clearly partisan act, and the truth would have come out shortly about the company's total lack of care for its users. Say what you will about Gab, but they never pulled any of those stun…
If you keep insisting parler as a bastion of free speech then there's not much to argue with you. It was a clearly partisan highly censored place where anything other than right wing commentary was not tolerated.
If signal gets deplatformed get your pitchforks. Till then I'm not worried. Also regarding the slippery slope, let it slide. If this is how we start regulating cloud services as utilities then so be it.
It's the 1980s, a Russian and an American are talking. The American says: "In my country, we can have freedom of speech. I can stand outside the White House and shout that the president is an idiot, and nobody can stop me". "So what," replies the Russian, "In Russia I can also shout that the president of America is an idiot and nobody will stop me".
but what matters is free speech... if we can no longer have it hosted in the US for the Internet, it doesn't really matter where the free speech is hosted (also, maybe we can host free speech for Russia in the US?).
> also, maybe we can host free speech for Russia in the US?
that's what we got; the main platform used by Navalny for his reports is youtube. https://www.youtube.com/user/NavalnyRu right now his last report on Putins palace has 108,627,830 views.
Parler was never a "free speech" platform. This was always a lie, they heavily moderated their content. I've always felt like Parler was just a lazy attempt to make some cash by pulling some users away from Twitter claiming they could do what they want, it was never more or less than that. I'm interested in knowing how you think a real "free speech" platform can actually work, however. We have message boards that do…
Whenever the discussion about Parler being a “free speech” platform comes up, I feel compelled to point out that they banned the DevinNunesCow parody account. Parler was more than happy to moderate speech, even political speech, as is their right as the platform creator. Their breathless claims about being free speech absolutists is absolute nonsense.
I think Parler's angle was to become the home for popular conservative commentators. Parler continually suggested Hannity, Levin, D'Souza, etc as accounts to follow, even if you blocked those accounts.
> Parler was never a "free speech" platform. This was always a lie, they heavily moderated their content. Exactly. Alt-left speech was not welcome on parler - only alt-right speech.
The correct antonym to Alt-Right is "Ctrl-Left"
And anyone in the middle should be called a spacebar.
At their size, they sure seem like it. What happens when AWS and Azure design their own silicon, outstrip other hosting providers, and then become the only hosts on the internet? Are they common carriers then?
Size doesn't have anything to do with it. No matter how big AWS and Azure get or what hardware they use, you can host a website out of a computer in your closet or the phone in your hand. No one needs them to operate, it's just convenient & cost-effective to do so.
> We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. this, from their "technical difficulties" notice, should have been enough for him to be fired on its own. requiring some users to provide government identification, building such weak security that anyone can read and archive private messages, and not stripping out damaging meta-data from media posts are three ways to not provide…
FWIW, I recently found out that AirBnB now requires government id to be shared as verification after not having logged into AirBnB since 2014. I tried to delete my account but the option is not available or may be hidden behind the forced verification requirement.
That is so typical. My experience with Discord: I need to login to my account to be able to delete it, except what if I cannot log into it?! At first they disabled it, then I e-mailed them requesting them to delete my account, but all they did was a soft-delete, of course. All of the private messages are still there, etc. Even if I were to delete my account myself, it would still leave all my messages intact. I guess my definition of delete is different from theirs. They think delete = disable without saying it is disabled. Of course not being able to re-create the account with the same e-mail just further proves it. All that "delete account" does is remove your profile photo, change your nick, and disable your account, nothing more. I cannot even request them to delete all my private messages. I tried. They just do not give a shit.