171–180 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely, I want to find common ground with people who don't say anyone who isn't a neo-nazi is ALL THE WAY LEFT AND A DANGEROUS PERSON
Maybe you could start by realizing the vast majority of people on the right aren’t neo-nazis.
This increase of extreme assault on free-speech platforms should be worrying to everyone. Not too long ago, we were hailing the "internet" as a free fair space. Now it is a free fair space ... for everyone but some kind of people. I'm for free speech but this specific kind of targeted attacks is getting out of hand.
HN downvoting this comment to hell
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can cherry-pick several thousand twitter messages I've heard this claim asserted before. I am unconvinced. Can you show me some examples?
#killallmen and similar hashtags. Verified users advocating genocide!
The potential triggernometry in this complex inclusivity equation boggles my mind.
EDIT:
Downvoters: So this tweet is not accurate, No? [0]
From the reply thread, it shows how 'they' and Twitch are now re-hijacking the artificial term 'womxn' to lose its so-called meaning such that it can be used to cancel those who used it in the past, even when the same progressives coined it! [1]
This is how it starts. Redefine progressive terms, find famous person using it, call them out and demand them to apologise to the world right now for using that 'hateful' term they used in the past or be cancelled.
All of this because of Gamergate.
[0] https://twitter.com/Mr_J_Plays/status/1366669979526062081
[1] https://twitter.com/batterystapler/status/136666942026589798...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parler is basically a direct clone of twitter's basic features. They use different names but have features similar to that of Twitter's tweet/like/retweet. Gab's current iteration is a mastodon fork (although iirc they don't participate in the fediverse via activitypub). Gab is similar to Twitter like Parler but is less of a direct clone, offering other features Twitter doesn't have. Gab has been along for longer and…
"you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other mode“ For a non-American, could you explain how this is far right? Sounds pretty liberal.
It's liberal in the same way it would be liberal to have a party where you walk around naked and smear feces on each other.
Definitely a liberal party, but not one that most people want to participate in. Most people would rather have moderation where you're not allow to scream the N word at blacks. Which concentrates N word screamers and similar onto these free speech forums
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Both market to the (mostly American) far right, with their shtick being basically "you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other moderation". It’s incredible that supporting free speech is considered to be only important enough to the “far right” now to be worth marketing to. Free speech used to be something all Americans supported and defended.
"Break into Congress and kill the swamp creatures". This is a quote from Parler, and this is known as incitement, which is often illegal. The first amendment does not apply to child porn for obvious reasons, but it also doesn't apply to threats of violence, which isn't so obvious to everyone. To make this obvious, this is not a free speech issue.
In the end, the lines we draw are often in the sand, and the legitimacy of these threats have to be weighed with the consequence of real world actions.
People storming the Capitol Hill building shouting these things posed a legitimate threat, but so do feminists shouting these things in rallies in real life, or the people burning police departments during the George Floyd protests. What we choose to condemn however, seems to be completely arbitrary to passers by.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other mode“ For a non-American, could you explain how this is far right? Sounds pretty liberal.
Because the only defense they constantly employ for saying atrocious things is that it's not literally illegal to say them. It's not literally illegal to be racist, it's not literally illegal to be xenophobic, it's not literally illegal to be transphobic. So they think they should be all those things, although they don't call themselves those names. Things should be said based on the inherent merit of what they say,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Both market to the (mostly American) far right, with their shtick being basically "you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other moderation". It’s incredible that supporting free speech is considered to be only important enough to the “far right” now to be worth marketing to. Free speech used to be something all Americans supported and defended.
"Break into Congress and kill the swamp creatures". This is a quote from Parler, and this is known as incitement, which is often illegal. The first amendment does not apply to child porn for obvious reasons, but it also doesn't apply to threats of violence, which isn't so obvious to everyone. To make this obvious, this is not a free speech issue.
All censorship of any speech is a free speech issue. My take is that it is sometimes justified to give consequences to speech that cause harm, but i don't think we should pretend its not a free speech issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol, yup, I was just thinking that after I posted. /r/conservative is hilarious in that they rail against censorship and free speech issues and yet basically self censor so strongly that only "flaired" (someone vetted to be part of the group-think) users are allowed to post in pretty much all discussions. And even flaired users who dare to oppose the group-think are quickly banned. The cognitive dissonance on that su…
I don’t think they have much of a choice. When I’ve gone there after large news events and they have unflaired people able to post it turns in to /r/politics 2.0. I have seen discussions there from people on both sides of the political spectrum where neither side was downvoted to oblivion, which is more than you can say for most of Reddit.
Truth isn't welcomed there. For instance, you will be banned for simply stating that Trump lost the election
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s incredible that supporting free speech is considered to be only important enough to the “far right” now to be worth marketing to. > Free speech used to be something all Americans supported and defended. It's not that most Americans don't care about free speech. It's that most Americans understand that constitutional free speech means the government can't infringe on your speech, except in limited circumstances…
Before taking "constitutional" free speech for a concept, we have to understand that free speech is a prescriptive social norm . It happens to have a constitutional instantiation. That instantiation happens to be expressed as a restriction on the government's chartered power; this is an artifact of the process by which it was drafted, i.e. as part of a collection of proposed restraints on the powers federal governmen…
It's only now that social media has come along and has democratized publication of text, images, and video that free speech as it relates to private businesses is becoming an issue. Maybe in the future a majority of people will decide that social media is the proverbial public square and change the law to reflect that. But the prevailing paradigm to this point has been that a company has a right (and some responsibilities) to make rules about what people post on their platform.